MIDing like it's 2019
For those who have worked in the payments industry, it’s likely that you’ve delicately maneuvered a conversation with a merchant that thinks a merchant identification number (“MID”) should just work.
With so many hands touching a deal before a merchant is setup, human error is often the root cause of failed deals. But merchants don’t want to be bothered with these details.
It’s 2019 – this stuff should be figured out!
Thankfully, Autoboard’s in-line validations during application data entry and sophisticated verifications during underwriting can immediately flag errors for any application – helping agents and underwriters facilitate the conversation with those embarrassed merchants with, ahem, extenuating circumstances.
Secondary problems can arise from operational and/onboarding issues. An underwriter can catch most issues, but it is so easy to make a mistake given the numerous (600+) fields in an application and boarding instructions that need to be completed. We’ve heard stats as high as 20% of MIDs have issues.
As we integrated with First Data Omaha, it became more apparent that every ISO may treat boarding differently, and that there are infinite ways to utilize a boarding API. If agents and merchants have a high probability of entering incorrect information, but prefer flexibility in completing the deal, then implementing both technological and manual solutions can streamline the boarding process and reduce friction.
The beauty of Autoboard is that it reduces these errors along every step of the way.