This is really interesting take on the concept. I never thought of it that way. I came across this site recently which I think it will be a great use of new ideas and informations. Thanks a lot.

Motivation: The desire for tickets to the olympics is profound, the difficulty in obtaining them has been given a positive boost by the use of a fair ballot and clear pricing structure. That the path-to-purchase is nicely lubricated in this way works in conjunction with a strong gravitational pull to be at the games. The need to use visa is a hurdle but it is not insurmountable and, as a matter of fact, there are solutions such joint purchase with other card holders and pre-pay Visa cards, the latter being a very important part of their strategy – exposing this responsible card payment product.

Lack of perceived control: we largely don’t have too much choice over which card service we use. My NatWest bank card was recently switched from MasterCard to Visa without my consultation and without any detrimental effect on my usage. My bank may have cared who provided the service, I certainly didn’t and have no affinity or loyalty to either brand as a result. We see the provider of the card as the brand, not the service. It’s a bit like being loyal to the third party that provides your rubbish collection. Curiously I feel *increased* warmth to Visa having discovered through this situation that they offer a pre-paid card, it’s a worthy solution to credit-averse people. I’m sure MasterCard offer one but I don’t know about it.

I usually the first to be cynical but in this case I don’t think it’s a barrier to purchase (to all but the most prevaricating potential customers) and I don’t think that people care significantly enough about a brand they have very little control over or can differentiate between in terms of service received.