AWOP in action at ACL. Image: Simon Day
AWOP in action at ACL. Image: Simon Day

BusinessApril 4, 2018

Another Way to Pay: How AWOP annexed the summer festival experience

AWOP in action at ACL. Image: Simon Day
AWOP in action at ACL. Image: Simon Day

It traces its origins to Rhythm and Vines, and has taken a chunk of the festival payments industry across the Tasman too. Russell Brown discovers the company behind summer fun is getting serious to find new customers.

Have you ever looked, I mean, really looked at that chip on your wrist?

If you’ve attended Rhythm and Vines, Splore, Auckland City Limits, Northern Bass, Beervana, Toast Martinborough, Wellington on a Plate or any of about 50 other events in recent years, then yes, you’ve probably at least glanced at it. You may also have asked, how did it get there? And who and what is AWOP anyway? The answer begins – and to some extent ends – with the bars.

Event promoters have a love-hate relationship with their bars. On the one hand, setting up and running a festival bar is a painful and thankless task. You’ll have liquor licensing and the police breathing down your neck. If you get it wrong, even for half an hour, everyone hates you. If you get it right and you’re not very careful, you get the actual thing you don’t want for your event: drunk people.

On the other hand, bars make money (although the proceeds of a cash bar also represent a security and logistics problem themselves). You can not only sell drinks at a solid margin, you can sell “pourage” – the right to be sold – to big liquor brands. This may well be how your event breaks even. Bars: you can’t live without ’em, but you’d like to find the best possible way of living with ’em.

A decade ago, Andrew Mowbray, a chemical engineering student at the University of Auckland, was mulling a better way. The restaurant he’d been managing to support his studies had shut down for the Christmas break and one of his bar staff asked him if he’d like to set up and manage the bar at the Baywatch campground for Rhythm and Vines punters, and the cocktail bar at R&V itself.

“What it really came down to was that we had a ridiculous number of people,” says Mowbray. “You hire a bunch of transient staff and those transient staff have no vested interested in your business. So the amount of cash theft that used to go on was crazy.

AWOP founder Andrew Mowbray. Image: Supplied

“Also, when you’re running a bar with cash or with Eftpos, it’s a very slow way to transact. You end up spending more time messing around and trying to actually do the transaction than serving the drinks. So I thought, there’s got to be a better way to do this and I sat down and looked at what the available technology was and build a system to try and make it so the bars run more transparently.”

After a successful run at R&V, that system became AWOP (it stands for Another Way of Paying). It dominates the events market in New Zealand, has a significant share in Australia, and cashless payment business as far afield as Europe.

It’s all run from an old dairy factory in Matangi, near Hamilton, which was bought and redeveloped in 2004 by Mowbray’s father Harry. It’s the same factory that spawned Zuru, the $500 million toy company founded by his siblings Nick Mat and Anna. (Only in this family could the guy who built a company that completely dominates its national sector look like the underachiever.)

It works like this: each AWOP wristband or card contains an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip to which cash value is added or subtracted with a handheld terminal. Although Mowbray had the terminals designed for the company’s needs, there is no special magic in them.

RFID is a generation older than the NFC chips in your Hop or Snapper cards, and the 24-bit encryption that protects the system from value being illicitly added is standard-issue (but still very important, because the balance and transactions written on the card are the sole record of value). The chips themselves are cheap as, well, you know, chips.

“We went into the design with a set of criteria,” says Mowbray. “Having run bars, I was pretty focused on having something that was robust enough for bartenders to use. We wanted to build something that it no matter what happened – if every network on site collapsed – we had a system that was as robust as using cash.”

AWOP is also at Splore. Image: Simon Day

“What a lot of other payment systems have done in the past is to use an onsite database, and when a chip’s scanned it talks to the database to check the account. Those systems are prone to failure. We decided to have it so the information is all on the chip. And then the scanners we use actually just take the money off the chip and store the transaction on it. We wanted it to be able to work in a bar without any risk of the system actually stopping.”

“They’ve always run quite seamlessly,” confirms Fred Kublikowski, the production manager at Splore, which became an AWOP customer early on. “How they do it I don’t exactly know, but it’s a hell of a system.”

Going cashless also relieved the organisers of one of the major issues with onsite commerce: the actual cash. Kublikowski says the three-day festival’s former business manager would “literally sleep on a mattress of cash. Over the weekend her mattress got fatter and fatter. Not having to worry about that is incredibly relieving.

“You do have to have absolute trust in your RFID merchant supplier. I have to trust Andrew 100%. There is no way of making this work unless you have that 100% trust. It’s a very transparent system, but ultimately all you’re seeing in the end is numbers on a spreadsheet that they control.”

One thing Splore doesn’t do with the system is track anyone.

“Early on when AWOP was introduced, Splore had its hippie roots and some people had some misgivings about it. There was a pledge made that we would minimise the data tracking, so our audience didn’t feel they were being invaded.

“We’ve been offered the opportunity to add a ticket profile, the identity that’s on your ticket, to your wristband, which means we could potentially link it to all your purchases – and if we were really clever about it, we could link it to your credit card transactions. You can actually get quite deep data and that could be valuable. Some other events are very much into that – the ages of people who are at certain places at certain times and that sort of stuff.”

AWOP’s merchant site does indeed advertise demographic data as a service, “allowing us to provide you with the reports that tell you who purchased what products at what time” – useful information for post-event marketing. But does that mean linking individual names with purchase histories?

AWOP’s website.

“We can do it, but for 90% of our events we don’t link the customer to the chip. We don’t push any of that information out,” says Mowbray. “I’m big on privacy and I think it’s important for people to not be known unless they specifically want to, so for us it’s more a case of providing a lot of generic data.

“We can say to an event, hey look, this is your target market, 18-24 years old, this is what they like drinking, this is what they like eating, this is where you can expect them to spend time onsite. But we don’t give any names or information about the customers away to the event.”

The only local event currently linking customers’ names to their numbered wristbands is Rhythm and Vines.

“One of the reasons they like being able to track the customers is that they’ve got quite strict alcohol policies,” says Mowbray. “So when people are yellow-carded they’re actually able to know the names. They also like to be able to pull people out if they need to. They can pull up a name and cancel that name on the door.”

If wristbands are used as part of an event’s access and ticketing system, then the agency that sells tickets will need to know both the number on the wristband chip and the customer’s name.

“And we track all the sales of that wristband. If the two are put together and the event gets the names and wristband numbers from the ticketing company, and the wristband numbers and sales from us, then they could join it up and see what people bought. Rhythm and Vines would be able to link the two together if they did that, but they haven’t ever asked us for the purchase history of individual wristbands. So, they don’t do it.”

Auckland City Limits was a first-time AWOP customer this year, and its patrons were able to opt in to a different kind of tracking using their AWOP wristbands. An activation designed for Spark and Spotify by the brand agency Spur let punters scan their chips at bollards around the site and have their day captured as #MyFestivalStory, which let them link up and share set lists, photographs and more. Just over 4000 people did that.

On a more practical level, AWOP’s system offers various ways to deal with one of those perennial bar issues: the people who drink too much. The chips can be set so they need activation for alcohol sales (you may have experienced this at Auckland City Limits) – and that permission can be reversed. The “yellow card” feature can even be used to prevent the wearer going to any access-controlled area.

Two bands up. Image: Simon Day

One reason the more sophisticated features are lightly used is that they come at a cost to the events. There’s not much sense in paying for demographic drill-downs you can’t really use. In general, AWOP makes money by charging a processing fee, which varies according to the size and timespan of the event (Splore pays 2.5% and adds the same again as its own commission on onsite vendor sales). For smaller events – including all the summer shows at the Mangawhai Tavern last summer – AWOP can negotiate a flat fee.

But if the old dairy factory offers plenty of room for AWOP’s six full-time staff, the constraints of a small market can be an issue. Mowbray admits the company is already doing “most of the events we want to do” in New Zealand. Even in Australia, where AWOP has a decent market share, scope for more is limited. It’s already booked for New Year’s Eve 2018, with R&V and the 60,000-capacity Woodford Folk Festival in Queensland.

Moreover, global operators are now competing in our market: the Hamilton Sevens, for instance, talked with AWOP before going with the UK-based Glownet for purchases and ticketing. (Embarrassingly, Glownet’s system went down for hours on the Saturday afternoon.)

AWOP has expanded its product range to include Eftpos equipment hire and satellite internet services, but its future growth may lie outside the event business. The company is building an inventory system for an Australian company that uses RFID tags with built-in lights that display when the chip’s number is entered into a terminal.

“It’s whole different sector,” says Mowbray. “We also go to trial at the end of April with Toll Australia. We’re in the middle of trying to build the world’s first fully-live real-time track and trace system. They want to be able to live track and trace every parcel and we want to be able to say, right, that parcel is in this vehicle and here it is on the road. So we can track a parcel anywhere in Australia down to five metres.”

But there’s one more thing you want to know, right? What happens to that money you left on your wristband and never got around to reclaiming from AWOP’s website? Who gets the cash?

Short answer: the event does. Promoters also determine the time allowed for refunds. AWOP suggests four weeks’ grace, but some events have allowed as little as a week. How much money is typically left over? Mowbray says it averages out to $1 to $1.50 per patron. Some events pass on the unclaimed money to a nominated charity, others treat it as revenue. Kublikowski is happy to acknowledge Splore is in the latter camp.

“We do this thing on very tight margins. After we’ve paid a thousand invoices and spent two million dollars, it’s nice to get a little bit of money back in the bank account.”


The Spinoff’s business content is brought to you by our friends at Kiwibank. Kiwibank backs small to medium businesses, social enterprises and Kiwis who innovate to make good things happen.

Check out how Kiwibank can help your business take the next step.

Keep going!
Is it time for Visa and Mastercard to be scrutinised over their tax practises too? (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Is it time for Visa and Mastercard to be scrutinised over their tax practises too? (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

BusinessApril 3, 2018

Google and Apple are under pressure over tax. Should Visa and Mastercard be too?

Is it time for Visa and Mastercard to be scrutinised over their tax practises too? (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Is it time for Visa and Mastercard to be scrutinised over their tax practises too? (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

New Zealand is one of the most profitable credit card markets in the world, one that’s dominated by Visa and Mastercard. Both companies benefit from sweetheart tax deals from being based in Singapore, but with increased scrutiny on international tech behemoths over their tax records, is it time for us to take a closer look at Visa and Mastercard as well? Gareth Vaughan from interest.co.nz investigates.

Total credit card billings in New Zealand reached $43.4 billion last year according to Reserve Bank statistics.

The local credit card market is dominated by Visa and Mastercard, who earn fees from the banks that issue their cards, and by processing payments.The bank credit card issuers, of course, lend the money and charge the interest rates which can be higher than 20%.

In October 2016, I had a look at Visa and Mastercard’s NZ operations thinking that, given the size of our credit card billings and the two companies’ market dominance, they’d have sizeable NZ companies.

But as I discovered that’s not the case. The most recent financial statements Visa and Mastercard had filed to the Companies Office at the time of my 2016 story showed combined annual revenue of just $7.7 million, combined profit of $268,647, and a combined tax bill of just $257,109.

Shortly after my 2016 Visa-Mastercard story, the London-based Lafferty Group cited NZ as the seventh most profitable credit card market out of 72 countries it surveyed.

“Pre-tax profits reached $275 million in 2015, an increase of 2% compared to 2014. It is forecast to reach $297 million by 2018. Profit per card reached $105 in 2015, compared with $88 in 2010. It is forecast to reach $114 by 2018,” Lafferty said in its report. At $105 per card, profitability in NZ was up $17, or 19.3%, over five years.

The small scale of Visa and Mastercard’s NZ businesses are because they merely provide “marketing support, client support and relationship and liaison services,” and “services to related companies” respectively. In both cases, the key relationship is with the parent company, which despite Visa and Mastercard ultimately being American companies, are both domiciled in Singapore. And they both have subsidiaries in numerous other countries besides New Zealand.

The activities of Visa NZ’s Singaporean parent are described as: “The promotion of Visa branding in relation to cash payment, network, technology, products and services connecting consumers, businesses, banks and governments across the Asia-Pacific region, enabling them to use digital currency instead of cash and cheques.”

Meanwhile, the Singaporean parent of Mastercard NZ’s activities are: “Those relating to the payment technology that connects consumers, financial institutions, merchants, and businesses worldwide, enabling them to use electronic forms of payment and investment holding. The company earns fees from customers in the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and Africa region for providing transaction processing and other payment-related services to customers.”

Sweetheart tax deals

The Singaporean parents enjoy sweetheart tax deals. The most recent financial statements they’ve filed show Visa NZ’s Singaporean parent paid 4.3% income tax for the September 2016 year, and Mastercard NZ’s parent paid 6.8% in the 2016 calendar year.

Interestingly, those Visa and Mastercard NZ financial statements noted above remain the most recent ones they’ve filed in this country. For Visa, they cover the year to September 30, 2014, and for Mastercard, they cover the 2014 calendar year.

In December, I asked the NZ Companies Office, which operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, whether Visa and Mastercard should have filed financial statements since February 25, 2015, and August 5, 2015, respectively.

(Illustration: Interest.co.nz)

A Companies Office spokesperson says the two companies were required to file financial statements for accounting periods up to 2014 under the Financial Reporting Act 1993 on the basis that they were subsidiaries of overseas companies. However, for accounting periods since 2015 subsidiaries of overseas companies are only required to file financial statements if they are deemed “large.”

Based on the 2013 Financial Reporting Act, a company is “large” if, in the relevant accounting period, at least one of the following applies; As at the balance date of the two preceding accounting periods, the total assets of the company and any subsidiaries exceed $20 million, or in each of the two preceding accounting periods the total revenue of the company and any subsidiaries exceeds $10 million.

For Visa and Mastercard their 2014 financial statements indicate they didn’t meet the above “large” definition for the 2015 and 2016 reporting periods, the Companies Office spokesperson says.

“Accordingly, they were not required to deliver financial statements for registration for the 2015 and 2016 accounting periods. The Companies Office intends to liaise with these companies to confirm whether they have an obligation to file financial statements for the 2017 financial year,” the Companies Office spokesperson said in December.

A filing reminder process

Over the past couple of weeks, I followed this up with the Companies Office to see whether staff there had indeed liaised with Visa and Mastercard, and if so whether they have received any answers.

This time a Companies Office spokesperson says Mastercard has been sent “a first courtesy email reminder,” and Visa Worldwide “its second courtesy email reminder.” If it’s deemed “large” Mastercard is required to register its 2017 financial statements by May 31 this year, and Visa is required to register its 2017 financial statements by February 28.

“The Companies Office has not yet received communications from any the companies regarding their large or filing status,” the spokesperson says.

This means the clock is ticking, kind of.

“Before a company is considered as non-filing, the Companies Office goes through its filing reminder process, which includes two reminders leading up to the filing date, then an overdue reminder, and finally a phone call to each company. Non-filing companies are referred to the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment’s integrity and enforcement team to consider for enforcement,” the Companies Office spokesperson says.

‘We comply with all applicable tax laws’

I asked Visa and Mastercard a series of questions about their NZ tax arrangements, whether their local companies are large under Companies Office criteria, and if and when they plan to file new financial statements in NZ.

A Visa NZ spokesperson simply says; “Visa treats its tax obligations seriously and is in compliance with all applicable tax laws and reporting obligations.”

And a Mastercard NZ spokeswoman says: “Mastercard NZ complies with all tax laws. We have a small office in New Zealand and, as such, we’re not required to file financial statements under the Companies Office size criteria.”

For my 2016 story, Visa gave a much fuller answer, which was: “Since 1982, the headquarters of Visa’s Asia-Pacific Region, which includes New Zealand, has been located in Singapore. Our Singapore Asia-Pacific headquarters employs more than 1,300 people and provides significant activities and key processes relating to Visa’s core business operations and network payment services provided to Asia-Pacific clients, including those in New Zealand. We employ 12 people in the New Zealand office. Visa treats its tax obligations seriously and is in compliance with all applicable tax laws.”

The Inland Revenue Department doesn’t discuss the tax affairs of any individual taxpayer.

Fancy a tax holiday? Visa and Mastercard both have one – in Singapore

The latest financial statements from Visa NZ’s Singaporean parent show annual revenue of $2.3 billion USD, income tax of $69 million USD, and profit after tax of $1.5 billion USD. It generated $1.18 billion USD of revenue from international transaction fees, $976.277 million USD from service fees, and $739.827 million USD from data processing fees.

Mastercard NZ’s Singaporean parent’s annual revenue came in at $2.2 billion USD. Income tax was $17.4 million USD, and profit after tax $238.5 million USD. Key revenue sources were cross-border volume fees at $1.2 billion USD, and transaction processing fees at $1.2 billion USD (rebates and incentives cost $753 million USD).

The Singapore tax rates are so low thanks to a sweetheart deal from the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB). Mastercard notes it got an incentive grant from the Singapore Ministry of Finance at the EDB’s recommendation in 2011.

“The incentive had provided the Company with, among other benefits, a reduced income tax rate of 1% on excess taxable income of a fixed base amount commencing 1 July 2011 and continuing through 31 December 2025,” Mastercard says.

This table comes from Visa NZ’s Singaporean parent, which includes detail on its “tax holiday status” (Courtesy of the EDB)
This table comes from Mastercard NZ’s Singaporean parent.

The Singaporean parent of Visa NZ has a foreign currency risk section in its financial statements. This shows a 10% strengthening or weakening of the US dollar against the NZ dollar would have shifted its 2016 profit up or down by $2.964 million USD. The Australian dollar equivalent provided is $3.715 million USD.

Market power

In 2009, when Visa and Mastercard settled legal proceedings with the Commerce Commission over credit card interchange fees, the Commission estimated transactions on the two firm’s NZ cards had totalled $19 billion in 2004. At that time there were about 2.1 million Visa cards and 900,000 Mastercard cards in use in NZ, giving Visa 61% of NZ credit card billings, and Mastercard 29% of the market. Their market dominance is only likely to have increased since then.

The latest financial statements for the NZ operations of American Express show 2016 calendar year revenue of NZ$73.9 million, a tax rate of 28% with tax of $1.32 million, and after-tax profit of $3.34 million. Diners Club NZ was bought by The Warehouse from Diners Club Singapore for $3 million in 2014. The Warehouse doesn’t separate Diners Club’s financial results out in their own right.

Media coverage of international efforts to crack down on tax avoidance and tax minimisation by global companies, through the likes of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative, tends to focus on the likes of Google, Facebook and Apple. But surely Visa and Mastercard have earned a place at that table too.

This article originally appeared on interest.co.nz and is republished with permission.

The Spinoff is hosting Tax Heroes – a series covering tax, who pays it and what it means. Click here to read more.


The Spinoff’s business section is enabled by our friends at Kiwibank. Kiwibank backs small to medium businesses, social enterprises and Kiwis who innovate to make good things happen.

Check out how Kiwibank can help your business take the next step.