Global Consumer Survey: Consumer Trust and Security Perceptions · · 2017-06-30Global Consumer Survey: Consumer Trust and Security Perceptions FEBRUARY 2017 ... security and control

© 2017 Aite Group LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report by any means is strictly prohibited. Photocopying or electronic distribution of this document or any of its contents without prior written consent of the publisher violates U.S. copyright law, and is punishable by statutory damages of up to US$150,000 per infringement, plus attorneys’ fees (17 USC 504 et seq.). Without advance permission, illegal copying includes regular photocopying, faxing, excerpting, forwarding electronically, and sharing of online access.

Global Consumer Survey: Consumer Trust and Security Perceptions

FEBRUARY 2017

Shirley Inscoe

Global Consumer Survey: Consumer Trust and Security Perceptions FEBRUARY 2017

© 2017 Aite Group LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report by any means is strictly prohibited. 101 Arch Street, Suite 501, Boston, MA 02110 • Tel +1.617.338.6050 • Fax +1.617.338.6078 • [email protected] • www.aitegroup.com

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS IMPACT POINTS .............................................................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 5

THE CONTINUING RISE OF THE MOBILE CHANNEL ......................................................................................... 7

MOBILE WALLET SECURITY ..................................................................................................................... 10

RETAILERS ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

IN-PERSON SHOPPING ............................................................................................................................ 14

ONLINE SHOPPING .................................................................................................................................. 17

FRAUD AND DATA BREACHES ................................................................................................................. 20

STORED DATA ............................................................................................................................................... 23

PROTECTING CARD AND ACCOUNT INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 27

CONSUMER FRAUD CONCERNS .................................................................................................................... 30

FRAUD EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................................... 35

CONSUMER RESPONSE TO FRAUD ALERTS ................................................................................................... 39

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 46

RELATED AITE GROUP RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 47

ABOUT AITE GROUP...................................................................................................................................... 48

AUTHOR INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 48

CONTACT ................................................................................................................................................. 48

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: COUNTRIES SURVEYED IN 2014 AND 2016 .................................................................................... 6

FIGURE 2: MOBILE WALLET ADOPTION IN THE AMERICAS ............................................................................ 7

FIGURE 3: MOBILE WALLET ADOPTION IN EUROZONE .................................................................................. 8

FIGURE 4: MOBILE WALLET ADOPTION IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE)............................................................. 8

FIGURE 5: MOBILE WALLET ADOPTION IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ........................................................................ 9

FIGURE 6: PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILE WALLET DATA SECURITY IN THE AMERICAS ...................................... 10

FIGURE 7: PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILE WALLET DATA SECURITY IN EUROZONE ............................................ 11

FIGURE 8: PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILE WALLET DATA SECURITY IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ...................... 12

FIGURE 9: PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILE WALLET DATA SECURITY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC .................................. 13

FIGURE 10: IN-PERSON SHOPPING IN THE AMERICAS .................................................................................. 14

FIGURE 11: IN-PERSON SHOPPING IN EUROZONE ........................................................................................ 15

FIGURE 12: IN-PERSON SHOPPING IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) .................................................................. 16

FIGURE 13: IN-PERSON SHOPPING IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC.............................................................................. 17

FIGURE 14: ONLINE MERCHANT SECURITY IN THE AMERICAS ..................................................................... 18

FIGURE 15: ONLINE MERCHANT SECURITY IN EUROZONE ........................................................................... 19

FIGURE 16: ONLINE MERCHANT SECURITY IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ..................................................... 19

FIGURE 17: ONLINE MERCHANT SECURITY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ................................................................. 20



3

FIGURE 18: STOP SHOPPING IN THE AMERICAS ........................................................................................... 20

FIGURE 19: STOP SHOPPING IN EMEA .......................................................................................................... 21

FIGURE 20: STOP SHOPPING IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ....................................................................................... 22

FIGURE 21: SECURITY OF STORED DATA IN THE AMERICAS ......................................................................... 23

FIGURE 22: SECURITY OF STORED DATA IN EUROZONE ............................................................................... 24

FIGURE 23: SECURITY OF STORED DATA IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ......................................................... 25

FIGURE 24: SECURITY OF STORED DATA IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ..................................................................... 26

FIGURE 25: BEST DATA PROTECTORS IN THE AMERICAS.............................................................................. 27

FIGURE 26: BEST DATA PROTECTORS IN EUROZONE.................................................................................... 28

FIGURE 27: BEST DATA PROTECTORS IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) .............................................................. 28

FIGURE 28: BEST DATA PROTECTORS IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC.......................................................................... 29

FIGURE 29: GREATEST FRAUD RISKS IN THE AMERICAS ............................................................................... 31

FIGURE 30: GREATEST FRAUD RISKS IN EUROZONE ..................................................................................... 32

FIGURE 31: GREATEST FRAUD RISKS IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ............................................................... 33

FIGURE 32: GREATEST FRAUD RISKS IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ........................................................................... 34

FIGURE 33: FRAUD EDUCATION IN THE AMERICAS ...................................................................................... 35

FIGURE 34: FRAUD EDUCATION IN EUROZONE ............................................................................................ 36

FIGURE 35: FRAUD EDUCATION IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ...................................................................... 37

FIGURE 36: FRAUD EDUCATION IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC .................................................................................. 38

FIGURE 37: ACTIONS FOLLOWING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN THE AMERICAS ............................................... 39

FIGURE 38: ACTIONS FOLLOWING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN EUROZONE ..................................................... 40

FIGURE 39: ACTIONS FOLLOWING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ............................... 40

FIGURE 40: ACTIONS FOLLOWING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ........................................... 41

FIGURE 41: CONTACT PREFERENCES IN THE AMERICAS ............................................................................... 42

FIGURE 42: CONTACT PREFERENCES IN EUROZONE ..................................................................................... 43

FIGURE 43: CONTACT PREFERENCES IN EMEA (NON-EUROZONE) ............................................................... 44

FIGURE 44: CONTACT PREFERENCES IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC ........................................................................... 45



4

IMPACT POINTS

This Impact Report, based on a Q2 2016 ACI Worldwide-sponsored study of

6,035 consumers in 20 countries, provides an overview of respondent attitudes

toward fraud and data protection, and the ways respondents want to engage

with firms to minimize fraud. Where applicable, it also compares these results

with those from a similar survey in 2014.1

Sixty-five percent of consumers indicate they would stop shopping with a given

merchant after experiencing fraud or a data breach.

Even though data breaches have been common, consumer confidence in

merchants’ ability to protect personal information increased to 43% in 2016

from 34% in 2014, among the 17 countries surveyed in both studies.

Across all regions, the number one fraud concern is theft by computer hacking.

In some markets with very strict data security guidelines, such as Germany and

Singapore, consumers report some of the lowest levels of confidence in data

security and control.

Mobile wallet and payments adoption tends to be strongest in regions where

infrastructure for other electronic payments options, particularly card payments,

is less mature.

Consumers are generally not confident in firms’ ability to protect their stored

data. Only in the U.S., India, and Thailand do consumers report at least 50%

confidence that their stored data is well-protected.

Consumers are generally willing to interact with organizations to mitigate fraud,

and mobile is the primary channel, either voice or electronic, through which

they wish to engage. Indeed, 75% of consumers are very interested in receiving

a call or SMS message to their mobile device.

1. See Aite Group’s report Global Consumers: Concerned and Willing to Engage in the Battle Against

Fraud, July 2014.

http://aitegroup.com/report/global-consumers-concerned-and-willing-engage-battle-against-fraud

http://aitegroup.com/report/global-consumers-concerned-and-willing-engage-battle-against-fraud



5

INTRODUCTION

Consumers continue to face a range of changes in technology and in the way technology is

applied to financial services. These changes have impacted how people shop, how people pay,

and how people perceive the value of their personal data and firms’ custodianship of that data.

Consumers are more aware of fraud and are concerned about data breaches, with at least 2,260

confirmed data breaches in 2015 alone.2

Importantly, consumers show a willingness to help to combat fraud, particularly by leveraging

mobile technology. This willingness opens opportunities for firms to optimize the ways in which

they reach out to and communicate with consumers, ultimately improving customer experience

while reducing operational costs and fraud losses.

This Impact Report is the second in a two-part series on how financial fraud affects consumers’

perceptions.3 The report covers consumer perceptions in 20 different countries in the Americas

(North America and South America), Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), and the Asia-

Pacific region.

METHODOLOGY

ACI Worldwide, a global leader in electronic payments for financial institutions, retailers, and processors, conducted online quantitative market research in April 2016 and surveyed 6,035 consumers. The study was conducted in a total of 20 countries in the following regions:

The Americas: Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and the United States

EMEA: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the United Kingdom

The Asia-Pacific region: Australia, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Singapore

China, Russia, and Poland were removed compared to the 2014 study, and Spain, Thailand, and Hungary were added for 2016.

Figure 1 highlights the countries included in the survey.

2. “2016 Data Breach Investigations Report,” Verizon, accessed May 22, 2016,

http://www.verizonenterprise.com/resources/reports/rp_DBIR_2016_Report_en_xg.pdf.

3. See Aite Group’s report 2016 Global Consumer Card Fraud: Where Card Fraud Is Coming From, July 2016.

http://aitegroup.com/report/2016-global-consumer-card-fraud-where-card-fraud-coming



6

Figure 1: Countries Surveyed in 2014 and 2016

Source: Aite Group

In total, 6,035 consumers were included in the research—approximately 300 consumers, divided equally between men and women, participated in each of the 20 countries. Of the total, 5,861 own one or more type of payment card—credit card, debit card, or prepaid card. This is the fourth time that ACI has fielded this type of survey, and some comparative results are included from 2012 and 2014.

In each country, the data have a margin of error of approximately five points. Statistical tests of significance, where shown, were conducted at the 95% level of confidence.



7

THE CONTINUING RISE OF THE MOBILE CHANNEL

Mobile banking and payments have been hot topics for a few years, with many predicting the

end of traditional card payments and overstuffed “Costanza” wallets. Rumors of cards’ demise

have been a bit overblown, particularly in countries with very well-established card payments

infrastructure. There is much more adoption of mobile banking and payments in traditionally

cash-focused economies.

Mexico and Brazil have much higher rates of mobile wallet adoption than do the U.S. or Canada.

Existing infrastructure and entrenched consumer behaviors leave mobile wallets a solution in

search of a problem in mature card markets, such as the U.S. and Canada. That said, there is new

growth in U.S. and Canada, most likely driven by a combination of more point-of-sale terminals

accepting contactless mobile payments and mobile wallets built into many of the newer mobile

phones on the market (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Mobile Wallet Adoption in the Americas

Source: Aite Group, ACI Worldwide study of consumers in 20 countries, Q2 2016 and Q1 2014, and in 17 countries, Q3 2012

There is a similar pattern across EMEA, where most countries have well-established card

payments systems, including contactless e-purse payments for small purchases and transit

payments. In fact, some countries in the Nordics are working to eliminate cash. For example, the

Danish government has proposed moving toward electronic money for most transactions (Figure

3 and Figure 4).4

4. Virginia Harrison, “This Could Be the First Country to go Cashless,” CNN Money, published June 2,

2015, accessed October 10, 2016, http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/technology/cashless-society-denmark/.

11%16%

7%4%

20% 19%

6%4%

38%36%

17%14%

Mexico Brazil U.S. Canada

Consumer Use of Mobile Wallet in the Americas, 2012, 2014, and 2016

2012 (n=1,224) 2014 (n=1,222) 2016 (n=1,173)



8

Figure 3: Mobile Wallet Adoption in Eurozone


Figure 4: Mobile Wallet Adoption in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


In most cases, mobile wallet adoption in EMEA is generally not showing dramatic increases, and

for the most part, adoption is less than 25%. A notable exception is the UAE—part of this higher

18%

6% 7% 8%

22%

9% 10%6%

25% 24%20%

15%13%

Spain Italy The Netherlands France Germany

Consumer Use of Mobile Wallet in EMEA, 2012, 2014, and 2016

2012 (n=1,206) 2014 (n=1,211) 2016 (n=1,506)

26%

15% 17%

8%

24%

14%19%

6%

38%

23% 23%

14% 13%

UAE Sweden South Africa U.K. Hungary

Consumer Use of Mobile Wallet in EMEA, 2012, 2014, and 2016

2012 (n=1,236) 2014 (n=1,243) 2016 (n=1,496)



9

adoption rate could hinge on government and industry initiatives supporting contactless,

cashless payments in the UAE.5

The case in the Asia-Pacific is quite different, with high rates of mobile wallet adoption in India,

Thailand, and Indonesia. This is likely due to a large number of mobile-based peer-to-peer

payments, and because mobile devices act as the primary access to the internet for many

individuals and households. In many cases, individuals may carry multiple devices and thus have

multiple wallets.

As with the U.S. and Western Europe, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand have lower rates of

adoption, primarily due to more mature card payments infrastructure and consumers’ general

comfort utilizing plastic cards (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Mobile Wallet Adoption in the Asia-Pacific


Mobile wallet adoption in Asia is generally much higher than in other parts of the world,

especially in fast-growing economies such as India, Thailand, and Indonesia. These regions are

generally leap-frogging traditional card infrastructure and usage patterns while adopting the

latest and greatest technologies. These markets are also very mobile-oriented in that most

people’s internet connection is through a mobile device rather than a desktop or laptop.

5. Ehsaan Ahmed, “The Rising Trend of Cashless Payments,” Gulf News, published July 17, 2016, accessed

October 10, 2016, http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/banking/the-rising-trend-of-cashless-payments-1.1863595.

34%

25%23%

5%

47%

32%

23%

8%11%

56%51%

47%

28%

18%15%

India Thailand Indonesia Singapore Australia New Zealand

Consumer Use of Mobile Wallet in the Asia-Pacific, 2012, 2014, and 2016

2012 (n=1,236) 2014 (n=1,243) 2016 (n=1,496)



10

MOBILE WALLET SECURI TY

Consumer perceptions of bank-based mobile wallet security vary across the globe, though in

general consumers have a high degree of confidence in the security of mobile wallets. In most

geographies surveyed, roughly 80% of consumers report being at least somewhat comfortable

with mobile wallet security. In most cases, confidence in 2016 is similar to what it was in 2014,

with the exceptions of Brazil, Mexico, and New Zealand, where it has increased statistically. It is

notable that in 2014 a generally very small number of respondents used mobile wallets; that

number increases in the 2016 survey, indicating greater adoption of mobile wallets among

consumers.

In the Americas, high levels of confidence remained stable or increased. At first glance, it

appears confidence decreased in the U.S. Due to the very small population using mobile wallets

in 2014, this is not a statistically valid decrease. While there is variation across geographies,

overall confidence across the region remains above 80% (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Data Security in the Americas

Source: Aite Group, ACI Worldwide study of consumers in 20 countries, Q2 2016 and Q1 2014

44%

45%

42%

39%

30%

44%

34%

21%

40%

45%

51%

52%

64%

56%

61%

50%

16%

9%

4%

8%

6%

6%

21% 7%

2016 (n=43)

2014 (n=11)

2016 (n=49)

2014 (n=24)

2016 (n=50)

2014 (n=18)

2016 (n=107)

2014 (n=56)

Canada

Mexic

oU

.S.

Bra

zil

Q. How secure do you think the information on your phone or tablet is? (Consumers who use mobile wallets)

Secure—I trustthe bank to protectmy personalinformation

Somewhat secure—I realize this is a new technology which is still being explored but I like the convenience so I use it

Unsure—I don’t know what the bank does to protect my card or bank information on the mobile phone or tablet or whether the device itself is secure

Not secure



11

In EMEA, overall confidence remains generally high, though it varies noticeably across different

countries and is often lower than in the Americas and the Asia-Pacific. There are noticeable, but

not statistically significant, increases in confidence across the region with the exception of the

Netherlands. Even there, the decrease in confidence is not statistically significant and is likely

more representative of a larger sample size (more than double) than a dramatic decrease in

overall consumer confidence.

Much like other regions, the EMEA experiences a complex interplay between mobile wallet

adoption and consumer confidence—as more consumers adopt mobile wallets, the wallets

become a bigger target for criminals. And more people will be exposed to fraud, driving down

confidence, which in turn could negatively impact adoption in the future (Figure 7 and Figure 8).

Figure 7: Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Data Security in Eurozone


40%

42%

38%

37%

28%

33%

16%

18%

31%

45%

32%

54%

47%

50%

56%

62%

53%

58%

15%

13%

8%

11%

18%

11%

21%

25%

5%

13%

5%

5%

2016 (n=47)

2014 (n=31)

2016 (n=39)

2014 (n=19)

2016 (n=60)

2014 (n=27)

2016 (n=73)

2014 (n=68)

2016 (n=77)

Fra

nce

Germ

any

The

Neth

erlands

Italy

Sp

ain

Q. How secure do you think the information on your phone or tablet is?(Consumers who use mobile wallets)




Not secure



12

Figure 8: Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Data Security in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


Consumer confidence with mobile wallets in the Asia-Pacific region shows more strong

differences between countries than in the Americas or EMEA, but around 80% of consumers

report they feel at least somewhat secure with mobile wallets. India is a standout, with over 90%

of consumers reporting they feel at least somewhat secure.

New Zealand was the only standout with strong confidence that doubled since 2014. This may

be due in part to “Mobile Device Rules & Standards,” published in 2014 by Payments NZ, which

oversees New Zealand’s payments infrastructure.6 These standards are meant to protect

consumers and businesses and may have an impact on consumer confidence (Figure 9).

6. “Mobile Device Rules & Standards,” Payments NZ, published May 14, 2014, accessed October 31,

2016, http://www.paymentsnz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=108.

56%

37%

36%

37%

44%

40%

25%

29%

19%

28%

49%

39%

56%

33%

50%

62%

43%

50%

10%

11%

20%

22%

9%

11%

21%

21%

5%

5%

7%

10%

2016 (n=39)

2016 (n=71)

2014 (n=61)

2016 (n=41)

2014 (n=18)

2016 (n=113)

2014 (n=76)

2016 (n=70)

2014 (n=42)

Hungary

So

uth

Afr

ica

U.K

.U

AE

Sw

eden





Not secure



13

Figure 9: Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Data Security in the Asia-Pacific


51%

54%

42%

23%

35%

31%

19%

29%

44%

21%

31%

43%

39%

44%

58%

52%

51%

60%

48%

36%

62%

49%

6%

5%

13%

19%

11%

17%

20%

22%

16%

18%

18%

4%

2016 (n=168)

2014 (n=145)

2016 (n=55)

2014 (n=26)

2016 (n=142)

2014 (n=106)

2016 (n=85)

2014 (n=73)

2016 (n=45)

2014 (n=34)

2016 (n=154)

India

Au

str

alia

Indonesia

Sin

ga

pore

New

Ze

ala

nd

Th

aila

nd





Not secure



14

RETAILERS

Retail transactions are some of the most common and impactful transactions for consumers. The

impacts for retailers are also substantial. If customers don’t trust a retailer to protect their

information, they will go somewhere else to make purchases. This applies to both in-person and

online transactions covered below.

IN-PERSON SHOPPING

Many consumers indicate a lack of trust in stores where they shop in person to use security

systems that adequately protect their card or account information. Part of this may be attributed

to a number of very large and well-publicized retail breaches over the last few years, especially

in the U.S. Consumers report less confidence in brick-and-mortar merchants’ ability to protect

payment information than they do in online merchants’ abilities.

In general, across geographies, confidence has been rising compared to 2014. Some of the

lowest confidence is found in fast-growing economies in South and Southeast Asia. Yet even

here, confidence levels are quite high, with no country below 80% confidence.

Confidence levels that retailers protect customer data are relatively close across the Americas,

ranging from 66% in the U.S. to 55% in Brazil, a statistically significant difference. Both Mexico

and Brazil saw 10-point increases compared to 2014 results (Figure 10).

Figure 10: In-Person Shopping in the Americas


66%

62%

60%

60%

57%

45%

55%

45%

32%

35%

38%

33%

41%

49%

43%

50%

7%

6%

5%

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=311)

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=304)

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=307)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=300)

U.S

.C

anada

Mexic

oB

razil

Q. Do you think most of the stores where you shop in person use security systems that are able to protect your card/account information when you

shop?

Yes No Don't use a card to paywhen shopping in person



15

The confidence levels in EMEA vary more widely than in the Americas but still track in the 55% to

65% range in most countries. In some countries, such as Germany, Italy, and Hungary, larger

portions of respondents report not using cards for in-person shopping (Figure 11 and Figure 12).

Figure 11: In-Person Shopping in Eurozone


62%

54%

59%

56%

57%

45%

53%

45%

59%

36%

44%

35%

36%

32%

40%

32%

43%

37%

6%

8%

12%

14%

15%

12%

2016 (n=304)

2014 (n=300)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=304)

2016 (n=301)

2014 (n=299)

2016 (n=304)

2014 (n=308)

2016 (n=304)

Fra

nce

The

Neth

erlands

Germ

any

Italy

Sp

ain


shop?




16

Figure 12: In-Person Shopping in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


The Asia-Pacific region tracks quite closely with the EMEA region in confidence. Indonesia and

Thailand show the lowest rates of card usage for in-store purchases. This could be due to a

number of factors, including high rates of mobile wallet use (Figure 5), lower payment card

acceptance, and preference for cash in more rural areas (Figure 13).

73%

68%

64%

67%

65%

52%

58%

55%

57%

22%

29%

34%

30%

30%

46%

39%

44%

32%

5%

5%

11%

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=310)

2016 (n=302)

2014 (n=301)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=318)

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=314)

2016 (n=303

U.K

.S

weden

UA

ES

outh

Afr

ica

Hungary


shop?




17

Figure 13: In-Person Shopping in the Asia-Pacific


ONLINE SHOPPING

Online shopping, and increasingly mobile online shopping, continues to be a critical channel for

commerce. Consumer confidence in online merchants hinges on both security and convenience,

which also help to gain repeat customers and minimize cart abandonment and chargebacks.

In the Americas, over half of all respondents believe sites at which they shop have security

systems to protect their information, but the range was rather wide. In the U.S., 81% of

respondents believe security measures are in place, while only 57% in Mexico respond the same

way. This could be due to a longer tradition of online shopping in the U.S. and the marketing of

security measures (Figure 14).

70%

62%

65%

65%

60%

55%

56%

49%

55%

49%

59%

22%

30%

34%

32%

35%

41%

31%

41%

43%

47%

28%

8%

8%

5%

13%

9%

13%

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=310)

2016 (n=301)

2014 (n=310)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=310)

2016 (n=305)

2014 (n=330)

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=311)

2016 (n=310)

India

New

Ze

ala

nd

Au

str

alia

Indonesia

Sin

ga

pore

Thaila

nd


shop?




18

Figure 14: Online Merchant Security in the Americas

Source: Aite Group, ACI Worldwide study of consumers in 20 countries, Q2 2016

EMEA shows more variation in both confidence and overall use of online shopping. Eurozone

countries showed little variation across the five countries surveyed and are statistically the same.

This is most likely due to harmonization of consumer protection and privacy laws and regulations

across the EU. Outside of the eurozone countries, there was far more variation, with the U.K.

providing responses similar to the U.S. and Sweden responding similarly to the eurozone

countries surveyed.

Respondents in South Africa and Hungary report the lowest rates of online shopping, with 15%

and 16%, respectively, reporting they do not shop online. This could represent less maturity in

the online shopping market in these countries and, anecdotally, less confidence in online

shopping (Figure 15 and Figure 16).

81%69% 67%

57%

18%

23% 31%

35%

8% 8%

U.S. (n=300) Canada (n=303) Brazil (n=300) Mexico (n=303)

Q. Do you think most sites where you shop online use security systems that are able to protect your card/account information when you shop?

Don't shoponline

No

Yes



19

Figure 15: Online Merchant Security in Eurozone


Figure 16: Online Merchant Security in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


Respondents in the Asia-Pacific region showed significant variation. In India, 77% respond that

security systems are in place, and in Singapore, only 51% report the same. Consumer

perceptions in Singapore may be impacted by a large migrant worker population and generally

less online shopping compared to other regions. New Zealand and Australia, while 10

percentage points apart, track closely with the eurozone countries surveyed (Figure 17).

69% 67% 67% 66% 64%

23% 29% 23% 29% 30%

8% 4% 10% 5% 6%

Italy (n=304) France (n=304) The Netherlands(n=300)

Germany(n=301)

Spain (n=303)


Don't shoponline

No

Yes

79%66% 65%

57% 55%

19%

19%28%

27%41%

15%7%

16%4%

U.K. (n=300) South Africa(n=303)

Sweden (n=302) Hungary(n=303)

UAE (n=300)


Don't shoponline

No

Yes



20

Figure 17: Online Merchant Security in the Asia-Pacific


FRAUD AND DATA BREACHES

Consumers in the U.S. are far more forgiving toward merchants that cause them to experience

fraud or a data breach. The U.S. is the only country surveyed where less than half of consumers

would stop shopping at such a merchant. There was a very broad range of reactions to this query

across the Americas, with 86% of consumers in Brazil and 84% in Mexico saying they would stop

shopping with a merchant or retailer if they experienced fraud or a data breach associated with

the entity (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Stop Shopping in the Americas


77% 75%65% 63%

57%51%

21% 21%28% 28%

31% 44%

4% 7% 9% 11%5%

India (n=300) New Zealand(n=301)

Australia(n=300)

Thailand(n=300)

Indonesia(n=305)

Singapore(n=303)


Don't shoponline

No

Yes

37%

54%

84%

86%

26%

12%

7%

7%

37%

34%

9%

6%

U.S. (n=300)

Canada (n=303)

Mexico (n=303)

Brazil (n=300)

Q. Would you stop shopping with a merchant/retailer if you experienced fraud or were involved in a data breach with the organization?

Yes No Not sure



21

The majority of consumers in EMEA state they would stop shopping at a merchant or retailer

that allowed fraud to occur or involved them in a data breach. These figures are very high,

ranging from 52% to 72%; if consumers actually did stop shopping when these events occurred,

merchants and retailers would have to invest in better data security and fraud prevention

solutions (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Stop Shopping in EMEA


Last, consumers in the Asia-Pacific react in a similarly severe manner over the prospect of a

retailer or merchant allowing fraud to occur on their account or their data to be breached

(Figure 20).

56%

52%

53%

62%

65%

67%

70%

70%

72%

13%

15%

12%

17%

19%

11%

12%

12%

8%

31%

33%

35%

22%

16%

22%

19%

18%

20%

U.K. (n=300)

Germany (n=301)

Netherlands (n=300)

France (n=304)

UAE (n=300)

Italy (n=304)

Sweden (n=302)

South Africa(n=303)

Spain (n=303)


Yes No Not sure



22

Figure 20: Stop Shopping in the Asia-Pacific


Across all 20 countries, an average of 65% of consumers surveyed state that a fraud experience

or data breach would cause them to stop shopping with the merchant or retailer that enabled

that incident.

58%

62%

65%

73%

76%

10%

15%

18%

17%

13%

32%

23%

17%

10%

11%

New Zealand (n=301)

Australia (n=300)

Singapore(n=303)

India (n=300)

Indonesia(n=305)


Yes No Not sure



23

STORED DATA

Storing and managing personal data has become more critical than ever before for every type of

firm. Data breaches and hacking attempts have become incredibly common. Making matters

worse, a breach or hack at one firm can impact other firms, especially as many people reuse

usernames and passwords.

Different countries have different sets of data security and privacy laws, regulations, and

industry standards for data protection. This can be very confusing for firms large and small, and

certainly for consumers who regularly see news of hacking and data breaches across mass media

on a regular basis.

Across all the countries surveyed, only three—the U.S., India, and Thailand—had over 50% of

respondents indicate that they trust businesses to protect their personal data, and by

statistically small margins. This reflects the reality that for many years, firms’ ability to protect

data has lagged behind criminals’ ability to collect and monetize the data.

In the Americas, respondents from the U.S. showed one of the highest levels of trust out of all

countries surveyed, with 54% responding that they trust firms to protect their data. This is

surprising considering the frequent news about breaches and hacks. With the exception of

respondents from Mexico, the number of respondents who report they are unsure of data

protections and those who report they do not trust firms’ data protection tend to be about the

same and total over half of the responses. Respondents from Mexico much more strongly

respond that they do not trust firms (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Security of Stored Data in the Americas


54%47% 42% 41%

22%27%

26%39%

24% 27%32%

20%

U.S. (n=300) Brazil (n=300) Canada (n=303) Mexico (n=303)

Q. Do you trust firms (e.g., stores, online shopping sites, restaurants) to protect personal and financial data they have stored against hacking

attempts, data breaches, etc.?

Unsure

No

Yes



24

In EMEA, the respondents tend much more toward an “unsure” response when asked whether

they trust firms to protect their data. This is in some ways surprising, especially in the EU, where

there are more strict data privacy and security protections than in many parts of the world, in

particular the U.S. This is even more surprising in Germany, which has some of the strictest data

protection laws and regulations in the world.

In general, European consumers are much more aware and conscious of data protection and

privacy compared to their counterparts in other parts of the world, yet the number of

respondents who say they are unsure of firms’ ability to protect their data suggests there is a

lack of clarity and communication about how data is stored, managed, and protected. No

country in the EMEA region reports over 49% of respondents indicating they trust firms to

protect their data (Figure 22 and Figure 23).

Figure 22: Security of Stored Data in Eurozone


49% 49%42% 40%

30%

26%18%

24% 24%31%

24%33% 34% 36% 39%

Spain (n=303) The Netherlands (n=300)

France (n=304) Italy (n=304) Germany(n=301)



Unsure

No

Yes



25

Figure 23: Security of Stored Data in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


Similar to their responses about how well online merchants protect information, respondents

show significant variation in the Asia-Pacific region, with 60% of those in India responding they

trust firms with data, and only 36% in Singapore saying the same. In general, the perception of

firms’ data security tracked very closely with the perception of merchant security capabilities.

A large minority of respondents across the region report they are unsure whether they trust

firms to protect their data. Singapore is a surprising outlier, considering its strong regulations

regarding data protection and governance. In general, consumers in Singapore do much less

online shopping than do those in many other geographies due to the relatively small size of the

country and the ease of access to brick-and-mortar stores (Figure 24).

49% 46% 42% 37% 34%

19% 23% 32%29% 32%

33% 31% 26%34% 34%

U.K. (n=300) Hungary(n=303)

UAE (n=300) Sweden (n=302) South Africa(n=303)



Unsure

No

Yes



26

Figure 24: Security of Stored Data in the Asia-Pacific


Even though data breaches have been common, consumer confidence in merchants’ ability to

protect personal information increased to 43% in 2016 from 34% in 2014, among the 17

countries surveyed in both studies.

60%51% 47% 42% 40% 36%

18%

20% 23%21%

33%33%

23%29% 30%

37%27% 31%

India(n=300)

Thailand(n=300)

Indonesia(n=305)

New Zealand(n=301)

Australia(n=300)

Singapore(n=303)



Unsure

No

Yes



27

PROTECTING CARD AND ACCOUNT INFORMATION

When asked about what types of organizations best protect consumer information from fraud,

respondents in Mexico and Brazil have higher levels of confidence in large financial institutions—

65% and 57%, respectively—than in other types of institutions. In the U.S., there is a nearly even

split between large financial institutions and community banks and credit unions, at 39% and

34%, respectively. This may be due to much more national news coverage when an incident

occurs with a large financial institution compared to more local coverage when it comes to

community banks and credit unions (Figure 25).

Figure 25: Best Data Protectors in the Americas


There is variation in perception across EMEA as to which organizations best protect customer

information. In the eurozone nations surveyed, large multinational financial institutions and

governments ranked the highest, most likely due to generally strong data protection laws and

regulations. Non-eurozone countries surveyed showed much greater variance, with 59% of

respondents in South Africa viewing large multinational financial institutions as the most

reliable, whereas only 19% in Sweden felt the same. In Germany, perception was nearly evenly

split between multinational financial institutions, the government, and community banks and

credit unions.

Large chain stores outside of the eurozone generally showed stronger consumer confidence than

much of the rest of the world, with the notable exception of South Africa. The UAE distinctly

stands out with strong positive perceptions of large chain retailers (Figure 26 and Figure 27).

65%

57%

51%

39%

8%

14%

19%

34%

11%

16%

10%

9%

10%

10%

17%

8%

7%

10%

Mexico (n=303)

Brazil (n=300)

Canada (n=303)

U.S. (n=300)

Q. In your opinion, which of the following does the best job of protecting your card(s) or account information from fraud?

Large/multinationalfinancialinstitutions

Communitybanksor credit unions

Large chainstores

Governmentalbodies and/or lawenforcement

Small retailers/storesor smallrestaurants



28

Figure 26: Best Data Protectors in Eurozone


Figure 27: Best Data Protectors in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


In the Asia-Pacific region, there are more differences between countries than in some other

geographies. Large multinational financial institutions and, in some cases—notably Singapore—

governments are highly trusted when it comes to data protection. In Singapore, the

government’s efforts for strong data protection policies appear to have a real impact on

consumer perception. In other countries in the region, large financial institutions appear to be

generally well-trusted, likely due to strong brand image and efforts to promote consumer

confidence (Figure 28).

47%

46%

41%

41%

27%

17%

14%

20%

11%

27%

9%

14%

6%

7%

12%

22%

19%

26%

33%

24%

5%

7%

7%

9%

11%

France (n=304)

Italy (n=304)

The Netherlands (n=300)

Spain (n=303)

Germany (n=301)




Large chainstores



59%

48%

40%

25%

19%

17%

13%

19%

14%

34%

24%

22%

41%

27%

9%

5%

5%

7%

11%

10%

15%

15%

13%

South Africa(n=303)

U.K. (n=300)

Hungary (n=303)

UAE (n=300)

Sweden (n=302)




Large chainstores





29

Figure 28: Best Data Protectors in the Asia-Pacific


54%

45%

44%

42%

36%

36%

10%

20%

6%

15%

10%

14%

6%

8%

8%

12%

30%

24%

36%

27%

46%

32%

5%

5%

7%

6%

Indonesia (n=305)

Australia (n=300)

Thailand (n=300)

New Zealand (n=301)

Singapore (n=303)

India (n=300)




Large chainstores





30

CONSUMER FRAUD CONCERNS

Consumers clearly have an interest in security and have concerns about how merchants and

other organizations they interact with protect their data and protect them from fraud.

Combating fraud and improving security require a partnership between businesses and

consumers to succeed. Across the range of countries surveyed, the standout fraud concern is

theft by computer hacking. This reflects the concerns consumers have about how their data is

protected by merchants.

Conversely, across all regions, very few are concerned about shopping or paying bills using their

phones or tablets. This may be attributed to a few possible factors:

Many consumers view their mobile devices and tablets as very different from

laptops and desktops. While they are certainly different, they are all computers in

different form factors, and they all have potential vulnerabilities. This misperception

may lead consumers to be less concerned with security when it comes to mobile

devices. It is important to remember that NASA sent men to the moon with a

fraction of the computing power now available in a watch.

Consumers may not have experienced fraud through their mobile phones and

tablets yet. One single Android exploit, Stagefright, was detected on as many as

1,800 devices per day in late 2015.7 While the amount of mobile malware is

growing, many consumers may not have experienced it yet or may not have been

able to connect a mobile event to an actual fraud.

The concept of “computer hacking” is not particularly well-defined in consumers’

minds and may be perceived as more focused on businesses and governments than

on personal devices.

Though most of the regions’ respondents show similar patterns, there are some interesting

differences between some countries.

In the Americas, filling out paper forms requiring account information is a similar concern across

all countries surveyed, reflecting a worry that such paper forms might be used for fraudulent

purposes due to poor care exercised by the custodians of those documents.

It also seems that across the Americas region, consumers underestimate, or underreport, the

risk of theft by a trusted party (Figure 29).

7. Bruce Snell, “Mobile Threat Report: What’s on the Horizon for 2016,” Intel Security and McAfee,

published March 1, 2016, accessed September 18, 2016, http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-mobile-threat-report-2016.pdf.



31

Figure 29: Greatest Fraud Risks in the Americas


Patterns in the EMEA region broadly reflect the rest of the world, again with some interesting

differences. Germany offers an interesting example in which 45% of consumers report theft by

computer hacker as the greatest risk, higher than every other country surveyed in the region.

The low level of concern regarding in-store shopping does not necessarily reflect consumers’

attitudes toward the ability of merchants to protect consumer data.

Another standout is greater concern from consumers in Hungary, France, and Italy regarding

personal data available on paper forms. Much like in the Americas, this could be attributed to

general distrust in the custodianship of those forms as well as consumers’ perception of such

information’s usefulness in perpetrating fraud. On this metric, Germany was one of the lowest in

fraud concern (Figure 30 and Figure 31).

32%

12%

14%

10%

15%

10%

5%

2%

29%

14%

16%

8%

8%

10%

8%

7%

21%

18%

16%

12%

9%

8%

9%

7%

32%

20%

14%

14%

10%

3%

5%

2%

Theft by computer hacker

Filling out paper forms thatrequire card or account

numbers for payments orpurchases

Shopping online

Using my card information forpurchases via the telephone

Theft by a trusted party (e.g.,relative, wait staff, bank

employee)

Using my credit card onvacation while travelling away

from home

Using my phone or tablet toshop and pay bills

Shopping in a store

Q. Which of the following do you believe presents the greatest fraud risk?

U.S. (n=300)

Canada (n=303)

Mexico (n=303)

Brazil (n=300)



32

Figure 30: Greatest Fraud Risks in Eurozone


45%

6%

11%

7%

15%

10%

6%

1%

38%

11%

12%

13%

11%

7%

5%

3%

32%

18%

19%

11%

6%

7%

3%

2%

29%

22%

20%

10%

6%

7%

4%

3%

27%

24%

15%

16%

4%

5%

5%

4%




Shopping online



from home



employee)

Shopping in a store


Germany (n=301)

The Netherlands (n=300)

Spain (n=303)

France (n=304)

Italy (n=304)



33

Figure 31: Greatest Fraud Risks in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


As with the other regions, the general top concern in the Asia-Pacific region is theft by computer

hacking. Like other regions, there are some interesting cases. Concern about credit card use

while traveling is statistically higher among respondents from Australia and Singapore than

among those in Thailand and Indonesia, and is similar to the other countries in the region as well

as to respondents in the U.K., Germany, and the U.S.

Similar to the EMEA region, the generally low concern regarding in-store purchases does not

appear to reflect the modest level of confidence consumers report in merchants’ ability to

protect their data. This can also be reflective of consumers’ broader view of “computer hacking,”

which covers a broad range of events that may or may not include in-store data breaches due to

hacking (Figure 32).

35%

10%

12%

9%

15%

6%

8%

5%

35%

22%

17%

11%

4%

5%

5%

2%

32%

14%

19%

11%

7%

5%

8%

4%

24%

15%

16%

10%

14%

9%

7%

6%

23%

17%

15%

19%

3%

14%

5%

4%




Shopping online



from home


employee)


Shopping in a store


U.K. (n=300)

Hungary (n=303)

UAE (n=300)

Sweden (n=302)

South Africa (n=303)



34

Figure 32: Greatest Fraud Risks in the Asia-Pacific


37%

17%

15%

8%

13%

3%

5%

2%

33%

15%

10%

13%

11%

7%

6%

5%

31%

18%

12%

13%

12%

5%

5%

3%

29%

17%

13%

10%

6%

16%

6%

3%

28%

19%

14%

14%

10%

10%

5%

1%

28%

14%

13%

11%

9%

16%

7%

2%


Shopping online





employee)


from home


Shopping in a store


Indonesia (n=305)

India (n=300)

Thailand (n=300)

Australia (n=300)

New Zealand (n=301)

Singapore (n=303)



35

FRAUD EDUCATION

Consumer education on fraud awareness varies significantly across and within regions. Mexico

and Brazil show an improved recognition of anti-fraud education by financial institutions than in

earlier years; in the U.S. and Canada, levels are similar to prior years. It is concerning that in

2016 in every country in the Americas surveyed, over one-third of consumers could not recall

anti-fraud guidance coming from their financial institutions.

How well consumers are educated about fraud clearly correlates with how likely they are to

become victims of fraud.8 Mexico shows the greatest improvements in fraud education, while

Canada has shown consistently low numbers going back to 2012. This region has an opportunity

to improve customer messaging and communication with respect to avoiding fraud (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Fraud Education in the Americas


8. See Aite Group’s report 2016 Global Consumer Card Fraud: Where Card Fraud Is Coming From, July

2016.

33%

21%

14%

23%

18%

19%

25%

14%

15%

13%

13%

14%

12%

7%

6%

22%

21%

22%

13%

11%

15%

14%

10%

13%

14%

13%

14%

11%

11%

13%

21%

19%

25%

13%

19%

17%

39%

55%

65%

38%

44%

43%

37%

52%

42%

55%

54%

52%

6%

5%

6%

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=307)

2012 (n=302)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=311)

2012 (n=312)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=300)

2012 (n=306)

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=304)

2012 (n=304)

Me

xic

oU

.S.

Bra

zil

Canada

Q. Has your financial institution provided any guidance or tips for anti-fraud?

Yes, I've receivede-mail from themwith anti-fraud information

Yes, I've receivedmail from themwith anti-fraudinformation

Yes, I've seenthis on myfinancial institution'swebsite

Don't recallreceiving anyanti-fraudinformationfrom my financialinstitution

Notapplicable




36

In EMEA nations, there is somewhat less year-over-year fluctuation compared to the Americas,

but still at least one-third of consumers report they don’t recall receiving any anti-fraud

education or messaging. This results in a higher risk of fraud for a large group of consumers.

Financial institutions can help improve their image by communicating clearly how they work to

protect consumers from fraud without giving up so much information that criminals can use it to

their advantage. This can improve customer trust and confidence while helping to reduce fraud

losses (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Fraud Education in Eurozone


Non-eurozone parts of EMEA show more variety in customer perception, with countries such as

South Africa and the UAE showing much higher levels of consumer education—almost three-

quarters of respondents report that they have received guidance from financial institutions. This

compares to Sweden and Hungary, where less than 50% of respondents recall anti-fraud

24%

16%

17%

24%

17%

14%

16%

12%

12%

16%

15%

11%

15%

9%

10%

14%

8%

10%

13%

10%

11%

12%

10%

12%

20%

11%

25%

30%

30%

19%

19%

16%

20%

23%

19%

15%

19%

19%

10%

32%

36%

31%

42%

49%

54%

46%

47%

53%

42%

42%

39%

62%

10%

9%

8%

7%

5%

7%

7%

5%

18%

13%

11%

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=304)

2012 (n=303)

2016 (n=304)

2014 (n=308)

2012 (n=302)

2016 (n=304)

2014 (n=300)

2012 (n=301)

2016 (n=301)

2014 (n=299)

2012 (n=300)

2016 (n=303)

Th

e N

eth

erlan

ds

Italy

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Sp

ain






Notapplicable



37

information. The U.K. tracks much more closely with the U.S. and eurozone countries, but still

just over 50% of respondents recall anti-fraud messaging (Figure 35).

Figure 35: Fraud Education in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


Respondents in the Asia-Pacific region had a rather wide range of responses, with respondents in

India, Indonesia, and Thailand reporting high levels of anti-fraud messaging compared to many

other countries surveyed. Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand showed much lower levels of

awareness of anti-fraud messages, with less than 50% of respondents in each country reporting

they have seen some sort of anti-fraud education for 2016. Even though many institutions have

51%

42%

43%

38%

49%

47%

25%

19%

18%

9%

9%

6%

15%

8%

9%

7%

21%

14%

10%

14%

19%

20%

8%

6%

6%

12%

18%

24%

30%

10%

14%

19%

15%

17%

21%

22%

22%

40%

17%

21%

24%

19%

24%

21%

23%

41%

41%

38%

51%

57%

43%

51%

7%

5%

10%

6%

5%

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=314)

2012 (n=303)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=318)

2012 (n=315)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=310)

2012 (n=312)

2016 (n=302)

2014 (n=301)

2012 (n=306)

2016 (n=303)

So

uth

Afr

ica

UA

EU

.K.

Sw

eden

Hungary




Yes, I've seenthis on myfinancialinstitution'swebsite

Don't recallreceiving anyanti-fraudinformation from myfinancial institution

Notapplicable



38

some form of anti-fraud education and training, it does not always seem to resonate with

consumers (Figure 36).

Figure 36: Fraud Education in the Asia-Pacific


55%

53%

52%

34%

29%

22%

20%

20%

23%

18%

18%

14%

14%

12%

37%

19%

14%

11%

14%

13%

16%

14%

17%

18%

17%

24%

29%

11%

12%

12%

11%

15%

13%

21%

18%

19%

16%

13%

16%

14%

15%

17%

17%

21%

20%

13%

14%

18%

26%

37%

36%

45%

46%

39%

46%

41%

39%

53%

55%

24%

5%

7%

5%

7%

6%

5%

5%

5%

7%

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=310)

2012 (n=312)

2016 (n=305)

2014 (n=330)

2012 (n=305)

2016 (n=303)

2014 (n=311)

2012 (n=306)

2016 (n=300)

2014 (n=310)

2012 (n=315)

2016 (n=301)

2014 (n=310)

2016 (n=300)

India

Indonesia

Sin

ga

pore

Au

str

alia

New

Zeala

nd

Thaila

nd






Notapplicable



39

CONSUMER RESPONSE TO FRAUD ALERTS

Consumers are an integral piece of the fraud management puzzle. Whether they are reporting

fraud or responding to alerts, consumers are critical to the process. The way in which financial

institutions manage a consumer’s fraud experience can have a significant impact on future

decisions for those consumers. Meeting consumer expectations enables financial institutions to

develop stronger relationships with customers and improve revenue.

In the Americas, the majority of consumers report they would prefer institutions to block

transactions until they respond to the alert. In the U.S. and Canada, more consumers report they

would prefer more granularity by allowing common transactions to be approved based on past

purchase history, with 29% of Canadian consumers and 35% of U.S. consumers preferring this

option. This is much higher than numbers reported in Brazil and Mexico, possibly due to lower

awareness that this option is even possible.

Tellingly, very few consumers in any of the geographies surveyed indicate they would like all

transactions to be approved after an alert. This suggests that consumers have a good

understanding of the impacts of card fraud and the need to work through some inconvenience

to reduce fraud (Figure 37).

Figure 37: Actions Following Suspicious Activity in the Americas


Results in EMEA were generally quite similar to those for the Americas, with the majority of

consumers in all countries preferring that banks block transactions until they respond to the

alerts. Some consumers have a preference for allowing “common” historical transactions to be

allowed while blocking other transactions, with responses ranging from 15% to 32% of

consumers preferring this option. Only a small fraction of respondents, 3% to 9%, indicate they

would prefer all transactions to be approved (Figure 38 and Figure 39).

6% 29%

35%

17%

11%

65%

61%

81%

86%

Canada (n=303)

U.S. (n=300)

Mexico (n=303)

Brazil (n=300)

Q. If you were to receive an alert or notification about fraud activity from your financial institution, what action would you prefer?

Bank allows allactivity unlessI notify themotherwise

Bank continuesto allow transactionsconsistent with mypast history fromplaces where I haveused the accountin the past

Bank does not allowany transactionsuntil I respondto alert



40

Figure 38: Actions Following Suspicious Activity in Eurozone


Figure 39: Actions Following Suspicious Activity in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


Countries surveyed in the Asia-Pacific region show some variation between countries similar to

that of EMEA or the Americas. A strong majority of consumers prefer transactions be blocked

until they respond to the bank. Indonesian respondents stand out, with the largest number of

respondents preferring all activity be approved unless they notify the bank (Figure 40).

7%

7%

6%

30%

26%

31%

17%

17%

63%

67%

63%

80%

80%

Germany (n=301)

The Netherlands(n=300)

France (n=304)

Italy (n=304)

Spain (n=303)





9%

7%

5%

4%

4%

19%

15%

22%

32%

26%

71%

79%

73%

64%

71%

UAE (n=300)

South Africa(n=303)

Sweden (n=302)

U.K. (n=300)

Hungary (n=303)







41

Figure 40: Actions Following Suspicious Activity in the Asia-Pacific


Clearly, consumers are willing to be involved in preventing fraud, and institutions have a variety

of methods to reach customers—some are more preferred than others. In general, consumers

across all geographies prefer phone calls, with electronic options such as email and SMS

following close behind. In almost every country surveyed, a significant minority of respondents

include a physical letter as one of their preferred methods of contact.

The survey did not include a separate option for mobile application push alerts. This has become

another convenient electronic option to both notify consumers and allow them to approve or

reject transactions. Other newer communication methods, such as WeChat, were also not

included.

Approximately half of respondents in Mexico, Canada, and Brazil report they would prefer to be

contacted on a landline, and one-third in the U.S. report this as a preference. This may be

reflective of the large number of U.S. consumers that have abandoned landline phones at home

(Figure 41).

14%

11%

10%

5%

5%

14%

18%

19%

33%

20%

30%

71%

72%

71%

62%

75%

68%

Indonesia (n=305)

India (n=300)

Thailand (n=300)

Australia (n=300)

Singapore (n=303)

New Zealand(n=301)







42

Figure 41: Contact Preferences in the Americas


Preferences in EMEA similarly skewed strongly toward calls to a mobile phone, followed by SMS

and email alerts. Much like the Americas, between one-third and one-half of respondents show

a preference for a phone call to a landline. Even so, it is clear that mobile-based communication

is generally the strong preference across EMEA.

In several geographies within EMEA, respondents also expressed a desire for a physical letter.

This does not imply that a letter would be the only form of communication, but it appears to be

one of the forms of communication consumers appreciate (Figure 42 and Figure 43).

82%

68%

58%

60%

15%

2%

72%

64%

55%

49%

16%

1%

59%

59%

59%

34%

17%

3%

52%

34%

45%

48%

17%

5%

Phone call to cell/mobile phone

Send a text message (SMS)

Send an email

Phone call on a landline or phone that is not acell/mobile phone at home

Send a letter

None—if the bank notices anything unusual I would rather they declined my card immediately

Q. If your bank noticed unusual activity on your bank account or card, and you could be notified prior to the bank taking action, what action are

you very interested in your bank taking?

Mexico (n=298)

Brazil (n=296)

U.S. (n=291)

Canada (n=287)



43

Figure 42: Contact Preferences in Eurozone


78%

65%

53%

45%

17%

5%

69%

67%

54%

43%

17%

2%

68%

68%

51%

36%

15%

1%

50%

41%

49%

34%

28%

4%

48%

39%

47%

39%

24%

2%



Send an email


Send a letter




Spain (n=288)

France (n=298)

Italy (n=300)

The Netherlands(n=287)

Germany (n=294)



44

Figure 43: Contact Preferences in EMEA (Non-Eurozone)


Similar to the other regions, mobile-based communications, either SMS or calls to a mobile

phone, were the most preferred in the Asia-Pacific region, with email coming in third. Much like

EMEA, about one-third to one-half of respondents showed a preference for a landline phone call

(Figure 44).

79%

82%

59%

39%

13%

6%

79%

74%

65%

43%

41%

5%

65%

72%

53%

53%

31%

3%

57%

53%

49%

28%

25%

9%

55%

52%

46%

42%

21%

4%



Send an email


Send a letter




South Africa(n=284)Hungary (n=288)

UAE (n=290)

Sweden (n=276)

U.K. (n=288)



45

Figure 44: Contact Preferences in the Asia-Pacific


Most consumers rarely leave home without their mobile devices, and consumers love the

convenience of using them. Indeed, across all 20 countries surveyed, 75% of consumers indicate

they are very interested in receiving a call to their mobile device or having an SMS message sent

to their mobile device to partner with their financial institutions in preventing fraud.

73%

63%

60%

43%

25%

1%

64%

61%

56%

48%

30%

2%

62%

52%

51%

45%

14%

6%

61%

61%

49%

37%

15%

6%

60%

71%

48%

37%

19%

2%

59%

61%

44%

31%

21%

3%



Send an email

Phone call on a landline or phone that isnot a cell/mobile phone at home

Send a letter

None—if the bank notices anything unusual I would rather they declined my

card immediately



Indonesia (n=302)

India (n=293)

New Zealand (n=283)

Australia (n=282)

Singapore (n=296)

Thailand (n=291)



46

CONCLUSION

Consumers share a number of concerns about how their personal information is protected and

how businesses value data security and privacy. Consumers also show an interest in minimizing

fraud and protecting their information, but they often lack the understanding and tools to do so.

Financial institutions and retailers should continue to educate consumers on ways to

protect their personal information and ways the firm protects the customers’

information. This can enhance brand reputation and customer loyalty.

Online merchants, in particular, can highlight security measures in place, such as

Verified by Visa and Mastercard SecureCode, to feature security measures—even

though there are many less-visible security measures also in place.

Firms should include clear communication in FAQs and disclosures about the

protections the organization has in place to protect consumer data. These

protections should be in line with regulatory requirements and, when appropriate,

should exceed such requirements.

Consumers clearly view mobile-based communication, whether voice or SMS, as

their preferred means of fraud notification. Organizations should pursue a range of

mobile-based alert and communication options based on local preferences (i.e.,

voice, SMS, app push, and even others such as WhatsApp).

Consumers are particularly concerned with fraud perpetrated through computer

hacking. Firms can help alleviate these concerns through education and, in some

cases, by offering tools such as anti-virus and anti-malware software to help mitigate

these risks.

There is variability within geographies, which is often attributable to factors such as consumer

buying habits, access to technology, prevalence of various payments products, and sociocultural

norms. Some of these factors are in flux with changing technologies and demographics but

highlight the fact that there is no “one size fits all” approach to engaging consumers in fraud

management and securing their trust in and continued business with an organization.



47

RELATED AITE GROUP RESEARCH

Global Security Engagement Scorecard™, November 2016.

Digital Wallets: Provider Strategies to Meet Customer Requirements, September 2016.

2016 Global Consumer Card Fraud: Where Card Fraud Is Coming From, July 2016.

Digital-Channel Fraud Mitigation: The Mobile Force Awakens, June 2015.

Mobile Proximity Payments: A Disruption in the Force, May 2015.

http://aitegroup.com/report/global-security-engagement-scorecard™

http://aitegroup.com/report/digital-wallets-provider-strategies-meet-customer-requirements


http://aitegroup.com/report/digital-channel-fraud-mitigation-mobile-force-awakens

http://aitegroup.com/report/mobile-proximity-payments-disruption-force



48

ABOUT AITE GROUP

Aite Group is a global research and advisory firm delivering comprehensive, actionable advice on

business, technology, and regulatory issues and their impact on the financial services industry.

With expertise in banking, payments, insurance, wealth management, and the capital markets,

we guide financial institutions, technology providers, and consulting firms worldwide. We

partner with our clients, revealing their blind spots and delivering insights to make their

businesses smarter and stronger. Visit us on the web and connect with us on Twitter and

LinkedIn.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Shirley Inscoe

+1.617.398.5050

[email protected]

Research Design and Data:

Judy Fishman

+1.617.338.6067

[email protected]

CONTACT

For more information on research and consulting services, please contact:

Aite Group Sales +1.617.338.6050

[email protected]

For all press and conference inquiries, please contact:

Aite Group PR +1.617.398.5048

[email protected]

For all other inquiries, please contact:

[email protected]

http://aitegroup.com/

https://twitter.com/AiteGroup

https://www.linkedin.com/company/aite-group

mailto:[email protected]





Documents

Global Consumer Survey: Consumer Trust and Security Perceptions · · 2017-06-30Global Consumer Survey: Consumer Trust and Security Perceptions FEBRUARY 2017 ... security and control