> The pilot has started small, with two of the new breed of customer-service agents live now, but the ambition is to tap into candidates such as students or rural populations. “We also know there are tons of Klarna users that are very passionate about our company and would enjoy working for us,” he added.
[from the bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-08/klarna-tu...]
https://web.archive.org/web/20250512120733/https://www.bloom...
Similarly, Klarna isn't a shady payday loan company, it's an "AI-first consumer finance play".
In a more civilized time, saying this was your plan would get you chucked feet-first into a wood chipper.
We just used to call them loan sharks
I think there is a feeling that klarna, and other bnpl companies just lend without checking or caring of consumer credit, or buying power. I've never used them before, so I don't know if this is a case.
With credit cards there is the "appearance" of them checking credit scores, ability to pay , etc.. before giving a credit card.
I say appearance, because as we all know cc companies will just lend cards to anyone, and then charge huge interest rates.
Ultimately it's another form of credit, and it's a minor change on the current system. But since it's finance and lending, it's a step to make lending easier.
Shopkeepers don't want it, but fear they must if big chains start offering it, just as online shops feel like offering it is unavoidable due to the popularity in certain demographics. The financial watchdog doesn't like Klarna, and is increasing scrutiny³.
If Klarna has trouble marketing their value, then that at least is good news, but not unsurprising given the spate of attention it received over the last two years.
1: So much for the ethical side of Adyen (e.g., https://www.adyen.com/impact sounds hollow when you partner with loan sharks).
2: Some people are quick to defend Klarna for offering people a chance to buy their necessities with what amounts to a payday loan, but that is bullshit. Klarna predominantly is not used for daily necessities.
3: Klarna now has to state that they are offering a loan in the Netherlands where they are available as payment option, with the mandatory "borrowing money costs money" tag-line.
But there is also the realisation that a customer who uses BNPL today, won't be coming back next month when they are paying off their loan.
Dutch shopkeepers do not want Klarna, but if major chains like Primark etc. do it, they fear customers will start expecting it.
I don’t think that’s a good argument. For shops and customers that utilize BNPL you are not typically making routine purchases at the shop anyway because the minimums are $50 or more (merchants can negotiate those terms with the provider) but the base tends to be around $50.
If you buy a bicycle using BNPL you’re not like coming back to the shop the next month and buying a new bike again.
BNPL increases sales and merchants really like using it which is why they are signing up for it more and more. Basically the increase in cost is worth it to increase sales.
There may be some bad social dynamics, taking out loans, etc. but generally both merchants and customers like using those products which is why they use them.
My intuition is it brings in a slight bump now, at the cost of longer term.
The customer can either wait N months to buy the bike cash, or buy it now and pay interest for the next K months.
- In the first scenario, customers can quickly save up and return for accessories/etc.
- in the latter, the customer is playing XX% on top of the bike purchase which ultimately reduces the purchases that customer can make.
It’s just exploiting the “present bias”/time-discounting in human psychology.
Same way credit card increase sales, such that stores are willing to eat the higher interchange rate it costs compared debit.
Instead merchants prefer to lock in a sale right then and there, and they pay for that service.
Perhaps for an individual shop right now, in a world where Klarna exists but not universally, yes, there's a benefit to using it to lock in that particular customer right now.
It's less obvious to me, in the long run, that widespread Klarnification results in benefits to any particular shop. As mentioned earlier, having Klarna sapping up to double-digit percentages of the portion of customers' money (it's "zero interest" until it very much isn't, and they're in the "subprime" market) they were spending on possible-Klarnables and a few percent of yours on top as fees is easily a bigger impact that the average losses, if any, from the delta between switch-away and -to.
It's a bit of a prisoners' dilemma: you stand to gain money by defecting (to using Klarna) unilaterally, but if everyone does that, you all, plus the customer, collectively lose money (to Klarna).
Maybe? I’m not aware yet of any data that would support that hypothesis one way or the other. But we know that some businesses fail and some succeed so it would lead me to believe that hypothesis probably isn’t correct. As you mention though the availability of these offers isn’t universal, some businesses eschew these options and others don’t, and we will see that play out in the market.
If the businesses that don’t offer these services (cash only businesses as an analog) fail or convert you might have your answer.
I will also say that for many businesses they offer more than one BNPL provider at checkout so there is competitive pressure to offer good terms, have good creditworthiness models, and features to attract customers. Platforms like Shopify allow BNPL providers to create easy to use plugins that appear at checkout and merchants can add a few including Shopify’s home grown solution rather trivially.
In general I think your argument that it’s less obvious that it’s beneficial “in the long run” rests on the same logic that credit cards, 0% for 12 month offers, personal loans, etc. do as to whether there are benefits. Right now businesses add these products and see revenue go up, even if margins go down by 6-8% or so.
Loans like this also encourage customers to increase spend, because adding an extra few dollars (cents, etc) to your monthly payment is psychologically not as big of a deal as waiting another month or two before you can afford the more expensive item.
Putting a new group of people into predatory debt is a nice way to juice your numbers before you dump your shares, but it's not a good way to sustain an economy focused on producing real value.
The local independent Chinese place delivers and the local pizza places also deliver. (Pizza Hut’s own delivery is significantly cheaper than ordering it via Uber Eats.) Ergo, restaurants don’t have to deal with the rent seeking that siphons off profits, and money stays more local.
In a city an hour away, a local guy came up with his own food delivery service and eventually paid a programmer to make a simple app. You can now order from a whole bunch of places cheap. It’s amazing he’s stayed in business, but one thing he doesn’t do is rip off restaurants.
This is generally called "being a person with a soul."
>This is generally called "being a person with a soul."
Wholesome. So the hole in the wall restaurant that only takes cash was actually trying to save its customers from a lifetime of credit card debt, rather than saving the 3% interchange fee and possibly tax evade?
I don't know if they're engaged in tax fraud though. Not really my department.
I believe in business done for mutual gain, that's how I do mine, and I make it a point to find as many like-minded people to do business with because they're just easier to deal with. I don't feel the need to get second quotes on car repairs because I've gone to the same shop my dad went to. I know the guy, I handle his IT needs. He isn't out to get me for every dime he can, and I'm not out for every dime either: we go to each other when we have problems, and we solve those problems for one another with some on the top to take home.
I'm sure neither of us will be billionaires but I can also sleep at night which is nice.
I thought they more or less instantly offloaded the risk as asset backed securities to clueless people who didn't know the actual risk profile what they were buying
sound familiar?
But as you say that was ZIRP when everybody was stupid and this is now.
The AI marketing is just an attempt to reframe the value narrative of the company before IPO. They would rather be seen as an AI company than an unsecured lender of last resort.
The narrative on Klarna’s core business is not good in any case, either an extractive lender benefiting from people buying what they may not afford and charging exorbitant interest or a lender of last resort who has not properly underwritten the risk in their portfolio. Neither is preferential to them compared to a value narrative framing them as an AI company. Likely the market is too skeptical in this environment to take the bait however.