Every now and then a brand move comes along that forces us to think differently about trust and what consumers will permit. Samsung just dropped one of those moments with news of the incoming new Samsung credit card – launching initially in the U.S. Richard Walker gives his take on Samsung’s move into financial services.
I’m somewhat loathed to admit this, but Samsung – of all brands – feels pretty much part of the family.
We’re brand loyal to Samsung for our family TVs (two of them), we have a Samsung fridge freezer, Samsung phones… and a Samsung washing machine that plays “absolute bangers” at least once a day—three times on wintry weekends feat. football and cross-country mud. For important context – watch THIS and then come back to me…
Although sad and ashamed to admit it, Samsung is more than just a brand. It’s the soundtrack to our domestic life! Judging by the numbers it posts too – 182% increase in net profit in H1 2025 (to just under $672m) and revenue up to $14.5bn (+1.5% YoY) – it seems like we’re not the only ones dancing to the Samsung beat.
Which is why the recent news caught my attention. According to Yahoo! Finance (and other sources) Samsung is about to enter the U.S. credit card market. As far as we understand, the U.S. launch being reported is a physical and digital credit card, issued with Barclays, integrated into Samsung Wallet. Samsung Wallet is the default on Samsung devices, although users can still switch back to Google Wallet if they prefer.
This is huge – because it pits Samsung directly against Apple’s 2019 move into credit services, and because any brand stretch into financial services needs more than confidence. It needs trust.
This isn’t akin to Wotsits stretching into Mac n Cheese Ready Meals. This isn’t even just an M&S or Amazon-style stretch into finance. It’s categories colliding and it’s part of the battle for ecosystem dominance. As researchers and insight professionals, there will be a lot to watch and learn from.
Beyond Credit Cards: It’s About the Phone Ecosystem
This isn’t simply about Samsung offering a credit card, it’s about removing friction around payments and keeping the phone as the hub of everything. With its strengths in hardware and data, this apparent “leap” doesn’t feel that big. Consumers already use their Samsung phones as hubs for streaming, communicating, organising. Introducing financial services here isn’t a typical adjacent brand stretch akin to “let’s try doing a banking product”; it’s “let’s be at the centre of those digital-wallet moments.”
Sure, Apple’s digital wallet offerings have already helped to normalise the device as a means of payment. Samsung’s move is very probably (and primarily) a response to that. The question is – will it work, but also how will it work? Will it involve a brand repositioning for Samsung from a tech manufacturer towards something else – such as a financial technology platform? And is that a (dance) move they can make?
Importantly, this is also very different to Apple because of Android. Apple’s closed ecosystem means they control hardware + software + payments end-to-end with Apple Wallet and Apple Card existing in a sealed system. Consumers need only to trust Apple to make the move with them into financial services.
Conversely, Samsung controls the device, but Google controls the software architecture, and cloud infrastructure. The payments live in a semi-open ecosystem and the “trust” therefore is distributed across brands – in this instance – Samsung, plus Google and Barclays. Consumers may think “Who exactly am I trusting with my money here? Samsung? Barclays? Google? All three? Does that change if I use the physical card versus digital wallet?”.
Trust and the Permission to Stretch
Trust is the currency that underlies any financial relationship, far more than physical product performance. Samsung’s brand equity is strong in devices, but financial trust is different.
As a market research professional – here are some immediate questions I’d be asking (if they haven’t been asked already):
- What do consumers really think about a Samsung credit card? What objections need solving? Does it have the necessary “permission”?
- Do Samsung device users trust Samsung enough to give it access to their financial lives? How far can existing brand equity carry into financial trust?
- How much of that trust is mechanical (“I trust my phone to work”) and how much is relational (“I trust this brand with money”)?
- What segments of consumers are more likely to consider Samsung as a lifestyle ecosystem versus purely an electronics brand?
Behavioural Science at Work: The Accidental Wallet-Brand Asset
This follows on nicely from Andrew Wiseman’s piece earlier this week, from a behavioural economics standpoint, this could also mirror what Richard Thaler calls “sludge in reverse”: Samsung is removing friction (or making it minimal) for adoption. It doesn’t feel forced, Customers needn’t feel “tied in”. Instead, they’re making the product so embedded in the device experience that opting in to a credit card would feel natural.
What This Means for Client-Side Insight Teams
Segmentation needs to evolve
A pointer back to another Mustard blog… Traditional financial segmentation (based on credit risk, income, life stage, etc.) will likely miss the mark here. Understanding how consumers feel about “belonging” to the Samsung ecosystem (in the way that Apple tribalists do), alongside understanding factors such as trust feel imperative. Understanding mindsets could unlock who’s likely to adopt (and why) and who’s wary.
Trust quantification is critical
Insight teams will need to quantify the multiple dimensions of trust. Samsung doesn’t just need to build one type of trust to stretch into finance — it needs to build five or six at once. Traditional “tech trust” (functional) will get them attention but won’t get them adoption. Financial trust lives at the intersection of relational, competence, and data trust. That’s on top of delivering against experiential trust, intentional trust (related to purpose and ethics) and predictive / reliability trust – in financial services predictability often usurps innovation.
Watch and learn behavioural experimentation
Undoubtedly there’ll be lots of observational and UX research planned too. Real-world experiments (in-app prompts, usage tracking, pilot regions) will likely be well underway. Samsung won’t necessarily need to rely on large-scale marketing campaigns here; it may simply embed the necessary prompts and proof points into the mobile experience
Competition dynamics get even more… dynamic
The competition dynamics in financial services will continue to move. Traditional banks have a lot to think about – not just in terms of how to defend against tech-enabled disruption, but also around differentiation, how much brand trust still matters, and what it means across the different financial products and services. The tech brands are moving in, and the more traditional brands need to be ready.
My verdict…?
Overall, this feels like a well considered, strategic push towards extending loyalty and positioning Samsung as the hub of its loyal users’ lives. It’s much more ambitious than “let’s do a credit card”. They’re looking to lock users into services, not just hardware, whilst potentially reducing their dependence on Google. It makes lots of sense to Samsung. But does it make sense to consumers?
A previous Mustard blog explained how “a great brand stretch doesn’t rely on fame. It relies on fit.” Samsung clearly has the fame – but is the fit there? Trust is the likely determiner of this. Is the trust there to make it work – and what impact will it have on Samsung brand loyalty, and the wider FS sector?
If you’re in insight, strategy or brand planning, this is exactly the kind of moment you need to be watching with interest. This isn’t just about another financial product. It’s about a brand stretching into everyone’s everyday space.
If you’d like to map what this could mean for your brand or your customers, particularly in finance, tech, or retail, we’d love to help.