There are many arguments circulating both in favour of cash, and of
the alternatives. In terms of the former, the latest report by the San
Francisco Federal Reserve (Cash is King, Long Live Cash ) sums this up;
cash is convenient, easy to carry, widely accepted, anonymous and will
work in all circumstances (a factor amply demonstrated in the case
studies in this issue). It is also a store of value – another factor
that is highlighted by the Fed report, and likely to become even more
relevant if there are any repeats of the raid on bank deposits and
imposition of capital controls such as occurred in Cyprus.
The cashless lobby presents many arguments of its own – also based on convenience, availability, speed, cost. But one of the leading cashless players, Mastercard, is now using another argument to make its case – namely the cleanliness, or lack of it, of banknotes versus cards.
According to a new 'independent' report commissioned by Mastercard, which surveyed 1,000 people in 15 countries, Europeans believe cash to be dirty and riddled with bacteria, with more than half of those taking part thinking that notes and coins are the least hygienic items they come into contact with on a daily basis. This view was held by 57% of respondents across the countries surveyed – who see cash as more bacteria-laden than escalator handrails, ATM terminals and library books.
The survey was based on research by the University of Oxford showing that, on average, European banknotes and coins contain 26,000 bacteria. The dirtiest currency was the Denmark krone with 40,226 bacteria, followed by Sweden's krona with 39,600. UK currency had 18,200 bacteria. The euro was the cleanest, with only 11,600 bacteria. New currency has on average 2,400 bacteria.
Ian Thompson, Professor of Engineering Science at Oxford University, said that 'the banknotes we tested harboured an average of 26,000 bacteria, which, for a number of pathogenic organisms is sufficient for passing on infection...With banknotes passing between so many individuals there is merit in a wider study tracking the spread of resistant strains through the movement of banknotes globally.'
Mastercard claims that people are right to be concerned. According to the company, 'for a significant amount of people it's interesting to see a majority of Europeans prefer paying by card and find it a simpler, more straightforward way of paying. It's now true to say that the majority also find it more hygienic'.
Putting such comments about Europeans preferring to pay by card aside, they clearly didn't see the results of a research project undertaken by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine last year, which found that one in ten credit and debit cards contained faecal bacteria, with 8% of cards showing 'gross contamination' – meaning that they contained as much bacteria as an un-scrubbed toilet. By comparison, only 6% of cash showed gross contamination. The study had 272 participants, who offered up their hands, cards and money for testing.
In another study last year, this time by the University of London's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, an analysis of 200 banknotes and 45 credit cards showed that 26% of the former, and 47% of the latter carried high level of bacteria. The survey compared these with the bacteria found on the average toilet seat. The seats examined had 10-20 bacteria colonies forming in every 4 sq cm, while heavily contaminated notes had a similar or slightly higher number. However, heavily contaminated credit cards had more than 60 bacterial colonies forming in the same sized area.
Moreover, the Mastercard report concentrates on bacteria only. Everyday items are also subject to viral contamination - and viruses tend to last longer than bacteria on hard surfaces – eg. keys of a card acceptor at a POS terminal or, of course, plastic cards.
Reports of dirty money are nothing new, with several studies in recent years pointing to bacterial and fungal contamination. This was the reason, for example, that Arjowggins, developed it anti-bacterial and anti-viral substrate BioGuard®, while proponents of polymer substrates have long claimed the cleanliness of their substrate versus paper. This is the first time, however, that a cashless payment provider has attempted to use public concerns over hygiene to bolster its case.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt from this latest attack on cash.
First is that, despite what Mastercard and others of their ilk say, cash continues to play a critical – indeed pivotal - role in payments and in wealth management. The evidence is there in the latest figures from the Federal Reserve. It is also therein the images beamed out from Cyprus of people patiently queuing at ATMs, and petrol stations and the like displaying signs saying 'cash only'.
Second, so-called independent' reports commissioned by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism – not only within the cash industry, but more further afield.
Third, and following on from this point, such reports need to be countered more aggressively by the cash community. We have long argued in Currency News that the industry should work collectively and proactively to promote the benefits of cash. Mastercard's version of events gained wide traction in the popular media – the newspapers like nothing more than a good story about dirt, especially those with a high 'yuck' factor - but where was the counter-attack from the industry? On industry-specific blogs and websites maybe – but not out there in the public domain where it needs to be.
After all, if the war on cash is going to get dirty (literally and figuratively), then the industry needs to respond in kind.
The cashless lobby presents many arguments of its own – also based on convenience, availability, speed, cost. But one of the leading cashless players, Mastercard, is now using another argument to make its case – namely the cleanliness, or lack of it, of banknotes versus cards.
According to a new 'independent' report commissioned by Mastercard, which surveyed 1,000 people in 15 countries, Europeans believe cash to be dirty and riddled with bacteria, with more than half of those taking part thinking that notes and coins are the least hygienic items they come into contact with on a daily basis. This view was held by 57% of respondents across the countries surveyed – who see cash as more bacteria-laden than escalator handrails, ATM terminals and library books.
The survey was based on research by the University of Oxford showing that, on average, European banknotes and coins contain 26,000 bacteria. The dirtiest currency was the Denmark krone with 40,226 bacteria, followed by Sweden's krona with 39,600. UK currency had 18,200 bacteria. The euro was the cleanest, with only 11,600 bacteria. New currency has on average 2,400 bacteria.
Ian Thompson, Professor of Engineering Science at Oxford University, said that 'the banknotes we tested harboured an average of 26,000 bacteria, which, for a number of pathogenic organisms is sufficient for passing on infection...With banknotes passing between so many individuals there is merit in a wider study tracking the spread of resistant strains through the movement of banknotes globally.'
Mastercard claims that people are right to be concerned. According to the company, 'for a significant amount of people it's interesting to see a majority of Europeans prefer paying by card and find it a simpler, more straightforward way of paying. It's now true to say that the majority also find it more hygienic'.
Putting such comments about Europeans preferring to pay by card aside, they clearly didn't see the results of a research project undertaken by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine last year, which found that one in ten credit and debit cards contained faecal bacteria, with 8% of cards showing 'gross contamination' – meaning that they contained as much bacteria as an un-scrubbed toilet. By comparison, only 6% of cash showed gross contamination. The study had 272 participants, who offered up their hands, cards and money for testing.
In another study last year, this time by the University of London's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, an analysis of 200 banknotes and 45 credit cards showed that 26% of the former, and 47% of the latter carried high level of bacteria. The survey compared these with the bacteria found on the average toilet seat. The seats examined had 10-20 bacteria colonies forming in every 4 sq cm, while heavily contaminated notes had a similar or slightly higher number. However, heavily contaminated credit cards had more than 60 bacterial colonies forming in the same sized area.
Moreover, the Mastercard report concentrates on bacteria only. Everyday items are also subject to viral contamination - and viruses tend to last longer than bacteria on hard surfaces – eg. keys of a card acceptor at a POS terminal or, of course, plastic cards.
Reports of dirty money are nothing new, with several studies in recent years pointing to bacterial and fungal contamination. This was the reason, for example, that Arjowggins, developed it anti-bacterial and anti-viral substrate BioGuard®, while proponents of polymer substrates have long claimed the cleanliness of their substrate versus paper. This is the first time, however, that a cashless payment provider has attempted to use public concerns over hygiene to bolster its case.
There are a number of lessons to be learnt from this latest attack on cash.
First is that, despite what Mastercard and others of their ilk say, cash continues to play a critical – indeed pivotal - role in payments and in wealth management. The evidence is there in the latest figures from the Federal Reserve. It is also therein the images beamed out from Cyprus of people patiently queuing at ATMs, and petrol stations and the like displaying signs saying 'cash only'.
Second, so-called independent' reports commissioned by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism – not only within the cash industry, but more further afield.
Third, and following on from this point, such reports need to be countered more aggressively by the cash community. We have long argued in Currency News that the industry should work collectively and proactively to promote the benefits of cash. Mastercard's version of events gained wide traction in the popular media – the newspapers like nothing more than a good story about dirt, especially those with a high 'yuck' factor - but where was the counter-attack from the industry? On industry-specific blogs and websites maybe – but not out there in the public domain where it needs to be.
After all, if the war on cash is going to get dirty (literally and figuratively), then the industry needs to respond in kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment