In Search of Balance: Partnership Between Banks and Marketplaces

In 2025, the major banks expressed dissatisfaction that marketplaces offer users discounts when paying with cards from their own subsidiary banks, considering it unfair competition. The marketplaces, in turn, warned that restricting such loyalty programmes would lead to a price increase of 15–20%. The height of the mutual recriminations is now behind us. But the topic is still quite contentious, noted the moderator of the session of the Bank of Russia’s Financial Congress, RBC editor-in-chief Kirill Tokarev. He suggested that the participants discuss the stage of balance the market has reached. Econs provides excerpts from the discussion.

Equal Conditions or Privileges for ‘Their Own’?

– About eight months ago, it seemed there were absolutely irreconcilable contradictions. In fact, we all work for the client, and they, of course, want to receive as many advantageous offers as possible. Contrary to the myth of the closedness of platforms and unwillingness to cooperate with anyone, our task, like any customer business, is to provide more such offers. We pursued this goal by opening the ‘Green Price’ (‘Zelenaya Tsena’) programme (a special reduced price of goods) for all banks in Russia.

We transfer the money that the partner bank pays us for participating in the programme into a discount for the client. It is not the source of Ozon’s high profit margins. It is precisely accessibility to customers. All banks participate on equal terms.

As far as the balance is concerned, we’re ‘on track’ in the right direction. Together with our esteemed colleagues, we have demonstrated that it is possible to reach an agreement and that collaboration offers opportunities for scaling up and reaching a loyal audience.

Eduard Issopov, Chairman of the Board of MTS Bank:

– I highlight two stories here. The first is a story of competition, where we put pressure on one another from the standpoint of competitive struggle. This story, in my opinion, is now less relevant. The second question concerns product regulation, specifically the process of defining the boundaries of different types of products. It will largely determine the client’s behaviour on the platform.

Anna Kambulova, Managing Director of Sovcombank:

– We are grateful to the regulator for ensuring that our emerging conflict did not go unnoticed last year. We are grateful to Ozon for the clear and transparent rules for joining the programme. The number of transactions with our cards has increased two and a half times. About 5% of our active clients link their Sovcombank cards to Ozon to make regular payments. By the way, it is interesting that the same clients start ‘transacting’ 20% more.

Are we satisfied? Let’s be honest: the payment method should not affect the price of the goods. That is our conviction. What's more, there is another major marketplace, which does not yet have transparent rules for joining its programme.

Dmitry Tafintsev, Director of the Department for Interaction with Government Authorities at RWB:

– Balance is not a result, but a process. Only by constantly being in dialogue, in search, do we approach it. We are quite actively interacting on the issue of various partnerships. There are no restrictions or discrimination for banks participating in the work of our platform. For us, the interests of our clients are always our top priority, and they often require a wide range of products. Progress is being made in this direction.

We also realise that any bank operating on our platform also develops loyalty programmes, cashback, etc., which it provides for purchases on our platform. Thus, any cooperation should be built on a balance of interests. In dialogue, a point should be reached that meets the goals and objectives of all participants.

At the same time, there is a fundamental imbalance in the market, with the top ten banking sector participants controlling 80% of assets, whereas fintech banks, including ourselves, Ozon, and Yandex, comprise just 0.5% of this market. We often encounter situations where attempts to build partnerships and dialogue occur with the use of market power by certain large players. As soon as the conversation turns to conditions of equal terms of access to each other’s ecosystems, my colleagues’ interest immediately wanes.

Konstantin Markelov, Product and Technology Director at T-Bank:

– A discounted price is quite appealing. But I still have a question: who provides it? Is it provided by the marketplace or by its bank? If the discount is offered by the marketplace, that’s fine. However, if the reduced price is not given by the marketplace but by its bank, then we demand that it pays from its own capital. Otherwise, if we work on the platform, we have to pay cashback on the platform and all others from our own capital. A bank that belongs to the marketplace does not do this from capital.

At the same time, we are being offered terms that no bank’s finances could possibly sustain. Paying 4–5% or more just to get a reduced price – that is impossible.

Ekaterina Lozgacheva, Director of the Financial Market Strategy Department of the Bank of Russia:

– As we can see from the discussion, the issue remains both topical and quite pressing. To achieve balance, both market players will come to an agreement and the Bank of Russia will make adjustments – a combination of both is required here. Actually, it’s great that the participants in the meeting have moved on from the stage of clashing views to a dialogue.

A few years ago, we talked about developing competition in the banking sector based on different technologies. Since, as it seemed, banks possess technologies, they have substantial client bases, they are advanced, and finance is an integral part of our lives. However, big tech companies have suddenly emerged, boasting similar attributes: a large client base, cutting-edge technologies, and customer transactions on marketplaces, all of which necessitate finance. As a result, the competition has reached a completely new level.

Today, the main discussion revolves around the issue of payments on platforms and the use of payment instruments. For the consumer, the price should be clear regardless of which payment method is used. In our opinion, in the current discussion, we have not yet resolved this issue. Legislative changes will certainly be required here. As we once said, ‘the price should not depend on whether it’s cash or non-cash’, and the same should apply here. It doesn’t matter from which wallet or with which card the consumer pays.

Now, we are mainly talking about payments, but there are other financial services: loans, instalments, etc. They are still in the shadows, but they will surely become the next subject for discussion.