It’s entirely true that handling cash costs money. Banks charge a pretty penny for graciously accepting a river of coins and notes from a business account for example. But that’s not the same thing as saying that going digital payment only saves money. For there are benefits to handling cash as well as costs:
British retailers could save more than £7m a year each by ditching cash and accepting only card and digital payments, a study claims.
Large retailers such as Tesco could save as much as £48m annually by going cashless, according to the Global Payment Trends report.
Savings would come from costs associated with accepting cash at tills, and transporting it securely to and from banks by requiring customers to use card or mobile payments.
What’s being missed here is that basic point, that there are costs and benefits to absolutely everything.
The most obvious point about digital payments being that not all of us are up to speed with them as yet. Meaning that someone who simply does not accept cash will therefore lose the potential sales top those who only pay with cash. Or even, those who simply prefer top pay with cash at times and places.
Thus the “saving” of going digital is not the lower costs of not handling cash. It’s those lower costs minus the lost margin on those cash sales that didn’t happen.
Yes, of course, this is just a piece of PR from a firm that consults on how to go digital payment only. But then that’s the point of making this particular point. Who wants to take consultancy from someone who clearly doesn’t understand the first thing about the subject under discussion?