Public feed back for better banknote design

Public feed back for better banknote design
Hans A.M. de Heij
De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 6075
San Jose, California USA
17- 19 January 2006
Version 2, dated 1 February 2006
Presented at
IS&T/SPIE's 18th Annual Symposium
Electronic Imaging 2006
Conference 6075
Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques VI
San Jose, California USA
18 January 2006
Public feedback for better banknote design
Hans A.M. de Heij
De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
The euro banknotes recently celebrated their 4th year anniversary (2002 – 2006)! DNB has monitored the Dutch public’s
acceptance of the euro banknotes through surveys in 2002, 2003 and 2005, contrasting its findings with those for the
former guilder notes as well as the results of other recent consumer surveys conducted by the US Treasury (2002), Bank
of Canada (2003) and several others.
A unique time line is presented of the public’s knowledge of security features in the Netherlands over the years
1983- 2005.
Keywords : market research, consumer research, public information , public awareness of banknotes, measuring method
for the public’s awareness of security features, measuring method for the public's appreciation of banknotes,
questionnaire/public opinion poll on banknotes, design of banknotes.
1. INTRODUCTION
On 1 January 2006, the euro banknotes will have been in circulation for four years. It is a policy of De Nederlandsche
Bank (DNB) to gain feedback on the euro notes used by the Dutch. DNB does so in two ways:
1) by measuring the public’s knowledge and appreciation of euro banknotes,
2) by following the Dutch media and individual comments from the Dutch public to the central bank.
Another reason for this publication is the received interest in our previous contribution to the SPIE in 2002:
‘A method for measuring the public’s appreciation and knowledge of banknotes’ [14]. This article was quoted several
times by other central banks [46, 47], by a banknote designer and paper maker [72, 75], by scientists [73, 85], by a cash
users organisation [80] and a criticaster [65]. Usually the findings were accepted, but in some cases there were doubts.
Prof. Dr. Heiner Treinen, an advocate of double-side intaglio, for example, questioned the results of opinion polls in his
study of the subconscious perception of authenticity [73].
Central banks are taking more and more initiatives to enter the field of consumer or market research on public awareness
of banknotes. DNB also recently received interest from other central banks (e.g. Spain and Chili). The influence of this
public feedback on banknote designs, while still limited, will certainly be noticeable in the near future.
The need to invite more user input in banknote design is also expressed by the European Central Bank (ECB) in its
Monthly Bulletin of August 2004. With reference to the preparation of the second series of euro banknotes , the ECB
writes [59]:
‘The definition of the functional requirements relies on marketing-based techniques. The derived specifications are used
to initiate product design programmes for banknote design upgrades and new banknote series. The focus is on different
kinds of customers and users: the general public (including visually impaired people), cashiers, vending machines,
banknote processing machines, cash handlers, law enforcement authorities and the note issuing industry itself. Each has
different needs in terms of convenience, authentication, efficiency, resilience and costs and these needs also differ for low,
medium and high denomination banknotes.’
___________________________________
*) Correspondence: e-mail: [email protected]
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Since the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002, DNB has organised several studies to receive public feedback on the
new euro notes and coins. An overview is given in Table 1, which includes also public opinion research conducted by
others like the European Commission, United States Treasury, Bank of Canada and ECB [31, 42, 46, 53, 57, 62, 68, 70].
This paper focuses on relevant research by DNB, comparing DNB’s findings with those of others.
Time
Feb 2002
Feb 2002
Feb 2002
20021
Feb 2003
Feb 2003
Feb 2003
Oct 2003
Nov 2003
Feb 2004
Apr 2004 2
May 2004
Jun 2004
Sep 2004 3
Nov 2004
Dec 2004
Jan 2005
Feb 2005
Feb 2005
Mar 2005
Oct 2005
Research subject
EUR banknotes
EUR banknotes
USD banknotes
RUR banknotes
EUR banknotes
EUR banknotes
CAD banknotes
Banknotes with foil
Need for 1 and 2 euro
EUR counterfeits
Use of 1 and 2 eurocent
EUR counterfeits
EUR banknotes - divers
Perc. means of payment
Need for 1 and 2 euro
EUR cash handling
EUR effect of training
EUR banknotes
EUR 5 and 20 emotions
EUR security features
EUR various
Area
EMU
NL
USA
Russia
NL
Austria
CAN
A, D, E, F, I, NL
EMU
NL
NL
NL
EMU
NL
EMU
EMU
F, Lux
NL
NL
NL, IRL, F, D
EMU
Research done by
ECB - Research Bus. Int.
DNB - TNS NIPO
US Treasury/BEP - D&T
Central bank of Russia
DNB - TNS NIPO
OeNB - Inst. empirische SF
BoC - Research Dimensions
DNB/ECB - TNS NIPO
EC - Eurobarometer, Gallup
DNB - TNS NIPO
DNB - Center
DNB - Center
GFK
DNB - Center
EC - Eurobarometer, Gallup
TNS NIPO
European Anti-Fraud Office
DNB - TNS NIPO
DNB - TNS NIPO
DNB/ECB - TNS NIPO
EC - Eurobarometer, Gallup
Interviews
5,890
2,002
1,423 + 12FG
?
2,015
1,00
1,563 + 12FG
108
12,017
17
(500)
1,932
7,038
2,019
12,006
2,904
53 + 38
1,501
300
602
12,035
Type of interview
Face-to-face
Telephone
Telephone + FG (12)
Observations
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone + FG (12)
Focus Group (6)
Telephone
Focus Group (2)
Panel (2 months)
Internet based quest.
Telephone
Internet based quest.
Telephone
Face-to-face
Observations
Telephone
CASI 4
Face-to-face
Telephone
Table 1.
Overview of the public research done on euro and other banknotes since 2002. FG = Focus Group.
1
) As far as known. Based on reference [29].
) From 26 April – 6 June 2004, in the town of Woerden. In total around 500 points of sale participated.
3
) Perception research to different means of payment (cash, debit card, credit card, pre paid card) on safety, speed, ease of use and the
costs [78, 99].
4
) Computer Assisted Self Interviewing. 18 years and older.
2
2.1 Periodic DNB surveys (quantitative research)
The 2-year periodic research is important to DNB, because of the valuable information it provides on changing views.
Both the methodology and the questions remain unchanged so as to facilitate comparing findings and ensure maximum
reliability of the trends perceived. As the questionnaires are identical in set-up, the guilder-related findings and the eurorelated findings can be compared as well.
In February 2002, DNB organised an additional poll in view of the introduction of the euro. As expected after the massive
Euro 2002 Introduction Campaign and the extensive national campaign conducted in the Netherlands, public knowledge
of security features in the Netherlands turned out to have increased from an average of 1.7 for the NLG notes in 1999 to
2.3 for the new euro notes. This increase was predicted in 2002 [14]. Appreciation of the euro notes was lower than for
the guilder notes (i.e. a drop from 79.8 % for the Abstract Series to 65.7 % for the new euro series was measured).
To measure appreciation of their notes, three other central banks used the same questions as asked by DNB. This made it
possible to compare, for the first time in banknote history, public appreciation of banknotes in different countries!
The European Commission periodically polls the European public on a wide variety of subjects, including the euro, every
six months publishing the findings as Eurobarometer. There are also dedicated, so-termed Flash Eurobarometer surveys,
e.g. ‘The Euro, 3 Years Later’, characterized by an open and transparent reporting style [42, 62, 102]. Some of the
information thus gathered is also used in this paper.
Six trials for one contact
DNB reduced the number of interviewees in its periodic surveys from around 2,000 in 2003 to 1,500 in 2005. The reason
for this policy is the widespread use of mobile telephones (cell phones), which has its consequences for telephone
interviews in that potential respondents are often contacted at inconvenient moments. It is TNS NIPO’s experience that
nowadays six trials are required to find one willing respondent. While the reliability of the research did not drop
(i.e. 95% for all surveys conducted by TNS NIPO), the margin slightly increased (see Appendix I).
Since the replies to questions concerning the text and picture elements on the euro notes are stable, DNB is considering
asking the same questions in another four years for its future research efforts.
Latent knowledge: repeated questions and point out
The more time respondents take to reflect on a question, the more knowledge they come up with on banknotes.
Apparently, as it is not required for daily life, banknote knowledge seems to be stored in the back of people’s minds. In
other words, there seems to be a latent knowledge of e.g. security features of banknotes. That is why it may be advis able
to repeat questions and encourage the interviewee by asking Do you know any more?
In comparing surveys, it should be kept in mind that the questions used are often not alike. In the DNB public poll the
basic question reads Which security features in a banknote do you know? [14].
As known, people have difficulty putting security features of the banknotes in words [14]. This is why respondents could
be asked to mark the features they know with a pen in a black-and-white copy of the relevant banknote. Pointing out
stimulates the memory. When shown the note in question, people are able to recall significantly more security features
than when asked repetitive questions. Repetitive questions, in turn, yield more answers than non-repetitive ones.
2.2 Focus group research by DNB (qualitative research)
Often, market research is exclusively associated with quantitative research, like the large-scale collection of data. A
drawback of this type of research is that it does not provide detailed insight into the answers provided. For this reason
(additional) qualitative research may be used, like e.g. focus groups. In 2003, DNB gained its first experience with focus
groups related to banknotes. For one euro research project, it received feedback on different foil applications on
banknotes [39]. One year later, in 2004, DNB organised two focus group meetings, one with consumers and one with
retailers, to receive feedback on the counterfeit crisis at that time in the Netherlands [49].
Below some methodological comments are given on the two different quantitative market research methods used: focus
groups and individual in-dept interviews.
Focus groups versus individual in-depth interviews
Table 2 contrasts the most important differences between focus groups and in-depth interviews.
Focus groups are more common in the Anglo-Saxon world. In 2004, the US Treasury and the Bank of Canada reported on
their experiences with focus groups in a SPIE paper ‘Comparative analysis of public opinion research in the USA and
Canada’ [46]. In both countries, 6 different banknotes were shown to differently composed focus groups (bank tellers,
cashiers, consumers) nationally. In the USA, 12 focus groups were part of the research effort; in Canada, 12 focus groups
were consulted and also 6 in-depth interviews with law enforcement officers.
Focus Group /Target Group
- more common in Anglo-Saxon world
- for strong opinions, high public involvement
- interaction between participants
- no individual test possible
- opinion leader might influence others
- idea generating
- less suitable for reaction to range of products
In-depth interviews
- more common on the continent of Europe
- for low public involvement
- no interaction between participants
- test of individual, daily use
- real opinion of one person
- not conducive to many new ideas
- reaction to range of products
Table 2.
Some differences between focus/target groups and in-depth interviews.
Banknotes are products that do not generate much pubic involvement; the public never grows excited when discussing
banknotes, except perhaps when it comes to counterfeits or when a new design is issued. With such subjects, in-depth
interviews are advis able, as they often provide a detailed insight into deeper conscious and subconscious individual
processes. In-depth interviews are also the most suitable method if respondents are asked to do a test based on individual
decision making, like a security check on a banknote or an opinion of a new banknote design. A one-to-one relation of
respondent and interviewer will in such a case provide the most realistic output.
Another advantage of in-depth interviews is that they permit the use of a fairly large amount of stimulus material, e.g. up
to around 15 different banknotes. People are very well able to react on a range of products, but, on the whole, are not very
apt at responding to (oral presented) concepts.
Focus groups are usually deployed in order to generate ideas on a broad level. They are essentially idea generating
vehicles. Focus groups are also preferred when a rough overview of opinions, beliefs and associations is required. In
focus groups, however, the interaction stimulates respondents to keep giving new answers. A disadvantage is that a strong
opinion leader in a focus group might influence the group discussion. Therefore, it is advisable to use the individual
approach, especially when children and elderly persons are involved.
The limitations of any qualitative research must be kept in mind. Respondents are selected on a non-random basis and
their views cannot be regarded as quantifiable and able to project to any specific population or cohort or universe. The
information obtained may be viewed as indicative of the prevailing attitudes but not to the extent that they may be
considered representative of any defined population.
Cultural regions of the EMU
In conducting - for the first time - market research for ECB R&D projects within the EMU-area, the following question
had to be answered: should all of the 12 countries making up the Euro zone be involved, or a number of cultural regions
within the EMU area, if such regions are at all identifiable?
The first part of the answer was found by preparing an overview as given in Table 3; six consumer test regions were
identified. Since three of the identified areas are comparatively small, it seemed sensible to conduct consumer research in
the three larger areas first. If the results within these regions proved to be in line with each other, they would be
extrapolated to the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Greek regions.
Consumer test region
1. Anglo-Saxon
2. Germanic
3. Greek
4. Latin
5. Roman
6. Nordic
Total
Main languages
English
German
Greek
French
Italian
Portuguese
Spanish
Finish
EMU
Countries
Ireland
Austria
Belgium (50%)
Germany
Luxembourg (50 %)
Netherlands
Greece
Belgium (50 %)
France
Luxembourg (50 %)
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Finland
In mln
4.0
8.1
5.2
82.6
0.2
16.1
11.1
5.2
60.0
0.2
58.0
10.4
42.1
5.2
308.5
In %
1.3
36.4
3.6
21.2
35.8
1.7
100 %
Table 3.
Overview of 6 identified consumer test regions for qualitative market research within the EMU-area. Population figures
as at year-end 2003.
3. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF DENOMINATIONS
Practically all Dutch citizens are able to mention spontaneously the denominations 5, 10, 20 and 50 euro (see Table 4).
Higher values were mentioned significantly less often, notably the euro 200 and 500 denominations. The least known
banknote is the 200 euro banknote. However, the 100 euro banknote is becoming increasingly familiar. Remarkably,
familiarity with the euro 5 note declined in 2005.
Euro
5
10
20
25
50
100
200
250
500
1,000
2002
94
96
94
1
93
74
49
6
62
2
2003
94
96
95
0
96+
82+
52
11
553
2005
9197
94
1
94
86+
53
14
57
19
Table 4.
Spontaneous awareness values for euro banknotes (in %) in the Netherlands. The denominations 25, 250 and 1,000 do not
occur in euro [84].
+/- means a positive or negative significant difference compared to the results of the previous survey.
Spontaneous awareness of currency of lower values is the same for men and women. However, higher values (100, 200
and 500 euro) are better known by men than by women. The younger generations (age 18-35) and people dealing with
cash money for occupational reasons are the most familiar with the above-mentioned higher values of euro banknotes.
An increasing number of Dutch people mistakenly think that the current range of euro banknotes includes the
denominations 250 and 1,000 euro. One explanation for this misunderstanding is that the majority does not use these high
denominations. After more than 3 years, 77 % of the Dutch never held a euro 500 note in their hands, 63 % never a 200
euro banknote and 25 % never a 100 euro note [84]. Another explanation is that the Dutch may perceive the euro
denominations as the old guilder denominations, which did include a 250 and 1,000 value and were not much used in
daily life either. The Dutch do know that the 25 guilder banknote has been replaced by a 20 euro banknote.
Prompted awareness
When a denomination is mentioned to the respondent, people have a better memo ry: average prompted awareness is 6.4
(against 5.7 spontaneous). Six out of ten respondents (58 %) are aware of all 7 euro banknotes when prompted, against
32 % unprompted. About one third (30 %) is able to name six out of seven banknotes when prompted, about the same as
the percentage of people producing this information non-prompted (29 %). A minority (11 %) cannot name more than
five banknotes.
Prompted awareness of non-existing euro notes is even higher than spontaneous awareness, especially of the 1,000 euro
banknote (2002: 12%, 2003: 19%, 2005: 27%) . The confusion over a non-existing 250 has stabilised compared to 2003
(both 19 %).
4. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF SECURITY FEATURES
Since 1983, DNB has measured the public’s knowledge of security features. Over the years, this knowledge increased
from an average of 1.03 in 1983 to 2.2 in 2005 (see Figure 1). There seems to be room for further improvement. People in
the 18-35 age bracket can memorize on average 2.8 features (2005), and those aged 55-plus 1.5. Knowledge of security
features is also correlated with gender and wealth. Men can name more security features than women (2.4 against 2.0).
People in the highest social class are able to mention 2.6 features on average, while those in the lowest social class do not
1)
2)
1) = correct answers, 2)= including wrong and partly wrong answers
Figure 1.
The average public's knowledge of Dutch banknotes security features. Thanks to banknote design and information
campaigns the average number of correctly named security features increased from 1.03 in 1983 to 1.7 in 1999. In the
years after the introduction of the euro, this upward trend in banknote awareness continued to rise to 2.2 in 2005 [14, 17,
34, 84].
know more than 1.3 on average [84]. If banknote design and public information were further optimized, the awareness
target could be set at an average public knowledge of 3 security features.
In 2005, research by the European Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported an average knowledge of 1.3
security features, concluding that there was a ‘lack of knowledge about banknote security features aimed at the general
public’. No link was found between the knowledge of the security feature and correct identification of genuine banknotes
[68].
Declining incidence of wrong and partly wrong answers
Around 15 % of the Dutch people cannot name one single security feature by heart, while many of those able to produce
an answer are mistaken. Over the years, the gap between the categories correct and including wrong answers has clearly
narrowed (Figure 1), owing to the decrease in partially wrong answers regarding blind marks, banknote numbers and type
of paper over the years 1983 - 2005. Blind marks were answered by 49 % in 1983 and by 10 % and in 2005, banknote
numbers by 16 % in 1983 and 3% in 2005, while the type of paper seems much more resistant: 10 % in both 1983 and
2005. This positive development reflects both better communication and banknote design [14].
After the massive introduction campaigns in 2001, DNB chose not to promote the euro banknotes actively in 2002 and
2003. The result was a regression of public knowledge of security features from 2.3 in 2002 to 2.0 in 2003. Public
knowledge has to be fed regularly, as is confirmed by DNB-research in 2004: People cannot recall all security features
and awareness of security features waters down quickly [49].
Being alert to the danger of counterfeits in late 2003 and early 2004, DNB took action, thereby increasing public
knowledge to 2.2 in 2005. To raise this figure further, DNB’s strategy might be focussed on the laggards, i.e. the
15 - 20 % that cannot recall a single feature. In general, these people are found among elderly citizens, the lower social
classes and women [84].
Actions by DNB
The actions that DNB started in late 2003 – in some cases in collaboration with the ECB – and continued in 2004 and
2005, were :
- the provision of specific DNB training sessions for retailers in co-operation with the National Forum on the Payment System (end
2003 and early 2004);
- the electronic learning module ‘Learn 2 Verify’ produced by Keesing, around 10,000 copies; 5,000 for DNB, year-end 2003;
- the release of the DNB leaflet ‘Real or counterfeit?’ on euro security features, around 50,000 copies, year-end 2003;
- the release of the ECB/DNB leaflet ‘Feel Look Tilt’, around 100,000 pieces, May 2004 [55];
- the report on tested counterfeit detectors for retailers on website DNB, mid 2004,
- the production of the CD ROM ‘Real or counterfeit?’ (also freely down loadable), around 85,000 copies, July 2004;
- on-line education course ‘Real or counterfeit?’ (same as CD-ROM) on website dnb.nl, August 2004,
- freepost service for the public to send counterfeit banknotes by mail, 2005,
- the release of the ECB/DNB poster ‘Feel Look Tilt’ around 3,000 copies, August 2005,
- the release of a primary school learning kit designed to teach children aged 11 or 12 how to spend money and how to check
banknotes. This project was run in collaboration with a Dutch organisation NIBUD, September 2005 [95];
- the adaptation of the DNB education centre (2005),
- a survey measuring Dutch citizens’ ability to detect counterfeits, autumn 2005 [100],
- …
Large group that does not know any feature
As stated, 15 % of the Dutch public cannot recall one single security feature in 2005 (see Figure 2 and Table 5). In 2004 a
higher percentage was reported: 26.8 % of the Dutch could not mention one security feature [57]. And an even higher
figure, 40.5 %, was the outcome of another DNB survey [54]. Clearly, the research methodology employed may influence
the findings. This is also the ma in reason for DNB not to alter the periodic questionnaires.
Figure 2.
Overview of Dutch respondents (in %) that can not recall a single security feature over the years 1983 - 2005 [14, 17, 34,
85].
Which public security features are communicated to the public?
Before the public knowledge results are given, it is relevant to know which of the public security features are promoted by
the central bank. Table 5 shows the euro features as were communicated to the public, setting these against the promoted
features of the new designs of the USA dollar and Japanese Yen.
EUR (2002)
1. Watermark
2. Security thread
3. Hologram
4. Special ink
5. Tactile properties
6. See through register
USD (2004)
1. Watermark
2, Security thread
3. Colour shifting ink
4. Colour (offset)
5. Micro printing
JPY (2004)
1. Watermark (incl. bar pattern)
2. Hologram
3. Latent image
4. Pearl ink
5. Micro printing
6. Intaglio printing, including tactile marks
Table 5.
Overview of the public features used in the EUR (2002), the USD (2004) and the Japanese Yen (2004).
Watermark still best-known feature (but image watermark not recalled!)
The watermark remains the most frequently mentioned security feature, followed by the silver coloured, shining foil stripe
(see Table 6). The feel of the print and the type of paper gained in familiarity.
Although the watermark is the best-known feature in the Netherlands, the vast majority of Dutch citizens cannot recall
what it looks like: 90 % cannot describe the watermarks in euro 5 or euro 50 banknotes. Some think the watermark
represents an animal (1%) or bridge (1 to 2 %) [84].
Euro banknote security features
(only NL)
Name
Time
Research done by
Number of respondents
Method
Watermark
Hologram/silver foil
Security thread
Special ink: glossy gold stripe (irid. str.)
Special ink: colour changing ink (OVI)
See-through register
Raised ink, relief
Type of paper
Ultra violet (UV) total
- dull paper
- iridescent fibres (red, blue, green)
- ink brightens up (front, e.g. flag, sign.)
- ink brightens up (rev. e.g. bridge, map)
Infrared (IR)
Don’t know any security feature
Average knowledge of security features
DNB
DNB
DNB
DNB
Periodic
Feb 2002
TNS NIPO
2,002
by heart
repeated
70
61
31
5
5
7
7
7
11
1
5
3
2
2
11
2.3
Periodic
Feb 2003
TNS NIPO
2,015
by heart
repeated
65
52
13
3
3
5
5
8
16
2
9
3
2
3
18
2.0
Periodic
Feb 2005
TNS NIPO
1,501
by heart
repeated
68
49
12
3
4
5
9
10
23
5
12
3
3
5
15
2.2
Panel
M ay 2004
CentER
1,932
internet
question
88
72
58
19
12
15
30
54
6
31
11
6
40.5
±3
Jun 2004
GFK
7,038
Dec 2004
TNS NIPO
254
by heart
by heart
58.5
30.5
11.4
12.8
6.8
3.7
9.4
5.8
15.6
3.1
9.4
1.8
1.3
1.9
26.8
2.7
44
23
31
10
14
12
11
36
36
4
-
Table 6.
Acquired knowledge of the security features of euro banknotes in the Netherlands in 2002, 2003 and 2005 (in %) [14, 17,
34, 54, 57, 70, 84].
The data in the three tables of DNB’s periodic surveys are 100 % comparable. The data in the other columns are less
easily comparable because of the different methodologies used.
From the different surveys it may be concluded that the average knowledge of public features in the euro zone is in the
range of 2 – 3 features.
A second conclusion is that the surveys in the Netherlands show the same ordinal ranking of the features: watermarks
being the best-known features, with the hologram/silver foil coming second, and the security thread third, etcetera.
New feature: tested by scratching
In 2003, people developed the habit of scratching their nails over the so-termed ISARD pattern on the front of all euro
denominations (Figure 3), a standard element consisting of 15 parallel intaglio lines [81]. Initially incorporated into the
euro notes as a central bank feature (level 3), it now serves as a public feature (level 1) [71]. This is illustrated by Table 6,
which shows a rise in the score on raised ink relief: from 5 % in 2003 to 9 % in 2005.
Scratching a nail over an intaglio pattern is not a new habit. At the time of the Dutch guilder banknotes, many people
were aware that scratching a nail over the pattern of parallel intaglio lines printed on the reverse side of the Dutch
NLG 50/Sunflower note (issued in 1982) would produce the sound of a buzzing bee. The watermark in this note
represented a bee, i.e. the insect discernible on the sunflower. These former NLG-notes also bore a visible ISARDpattern, but nail scratching at that time was seldom reported.
nail scratching pattern:
buzzing bee
Figure 3.
Left: NLG 50/Sunflower with buzzing bee mail-scratching pattern (parallel lines printed in intaglio).
Right: intaglio line pattern ISARD on euro banknotes, today used by the public to do the nail scratching test.
Knowledge of retailers
Especially the retailer-related features became more familiar in 2005, like the different colours of the fluorescent fibres,
the UV dull paper and the images appearing under infrared light. And since UV checks are performed more frequently
now, counterfeiters will try to copy these features. In 2004, around 1/3 of all the common class counterfeits seized bore
imitated UV fluorescence/dullness features. Still, about half of all professional cash handlers do not use any devices. A
minority of the retailers, around 10 %, use iodine pens and IR viewers.
No relation found between size and knowledge of security feature
DNB found that the space consumed by a given euro banknote security feature and public awareness of this feature are
not correlated [77]. However, larger public security features would have the advantage of being more easily
communicable and verifiable.
Knowledge of picture and text elements
Just as at the time of the NLG banknotes, the public can recall a maximum of 4 picture elements; most people can
mention one or two. The same holds for the text elements. In general, people can recall one or two text elements and
hardly anybody can recall more than 4. The best recalled images and text elements of the 50 euro banknote are given in
Table 7. The questions on picture and text elements are only asked for the euro 5 and euro 50 banknotes.
Public knowledge – euro 50 banknote
Picture elements
Orange colours (39 %)
Other colours than orange or brown (31 %)
Brown colours (29 %)
Hologram/foil stripe (9 %)
(part of a) building/historical building (9%)
Bridge (5 %)
Gate or door (5%)
Cannot recall a single feature: 21 %
Text elements
Figure 50/the number 50 (73 %)
Word EURO (20 %)
Banknote number (8 %)
Word EYPO (5 %)
The euro symbol € (4 %)
BCE/ECB/etc (initials ECB in 5 versions) (3 %)
Signature/signature Duisenberg (3 %)
Cannot recall a single feature: 24 %
Table 7.
Spontaneous knowledge of picture and text elements of the euro 50 banknote [84].
Comparing DNB findings with others
Table 8 provides the same overview as Table 6. Instead of the NL-area, now the figures for the EMU-area are given.
An important conclusion is that pointing out leads to significantly higher scores than produced by heart, as may be
deducted from Table 8. And produced by heart provides systematically higher scores than by heart. Answers given in
internet questionnaires lead to higher scores than produced by heart (see Table 6).
Security features of euro
banknotes (all EMU)
Name
Time
Research done by
Number of respondents
Method
Watermark
Hologram - stripe
- patch
Security thread
Special ink - iridescent
Special ink - colour shifting
Raised print
Feel of the paper
See-through register
Small letters, micro text
Different size
Don’t know any sec. feature
EU
ECB
Wave 4
Feb 2002
RBI
Commission
OLAF
Jan 2005
Université P.
Mendès
53 1
DNB/ECB
Picto
Mar 2005
TNS NIPO
Jun 2004
GFK
Dec 2004
TNS NIPO
5,890
produced
by heart
397,856
by heart
by heart
2,904
produced by
heart
point out
by heart
602 2
produced by
heart
64
57
34
57
40
32
35
22
48
-
29.3
12
36
48
49
55
30.4
8
37
56
32
33
18.7
5.3
3.8
6.9
6.8
3
0.9
30
8
2
2
9
38
3
-
34
12
14
23
56
12
-
46
23
23
24
51
22
-
21
3.8
3.8
15
5.7
-
42
5
10
9
23
8
2
15
Table 8.
Overview of the euro banknote security features mentioned by the EMU-public in different surveys [14, 57, 68, 70, 91].
Answers in %. UV and IR properties are not included.
1
) = only in France,
) = only in France, Germany and Ireland.
2
Figure 4.
A section of the ECB website, July 2005, including the communication symbols representing ‘feel’, ‘look’ and ‘tilt’. The
pictograms start moving when touched by the cursor: the hand rubs the note, the sun turns around and the third symbol
tilts backwards. This is a fine example of introducing humour in banknote checking (the homo ludens philosophy).
Pointing out stimulates people’s power to recollect public features. If all public security features on the banknotes were
marked with way-finding features or pictograms, these elements would serve as stepping stones in finding them. This
opens up new possibilities for communication. Leaflets would no longer be required, since the note proper would contain
the necessary instructions. In case of counterfeits, people would just have to examine the note to recall all the features.
Furthermore, they would know what to do: feel, look or tilt! Slogan: Just follow the pictograms! [14, 63, 64, 98, 101].
In May 2004, the communication symbols appeared in the new communication tools Feel Look Tilt of the ECB [55]. As
of 15 July 2005, the symbols are also to be found on the ECB website www.ecb.int (Figure 4). These communication
symbols are developed as part of a set of two:
1) communication symbols, to be used in commu nication tools (see Figure 5),
2) way-finding features (only feel, look and tilt), developed to be used on banknotes (see Figure 6).
FEEL
Rub, scratch,
feel with the finger or nail.
Ink relief (intaglio),
type of paper/substrate, …
LOOK
Hold to the light.
Watermark, security thread,
see-through register, …
TILT
Move, turn the note.
Hologram, colour shifting ink,
iridescent stripe,
latent image, …
MAGNIFY
Enlarge parts of the banknote.
Micro text, thin lines, …
SPECIAL LIGHT
Hold the note under special light.
Ultra violet (UV), infra red (IR), …
FILTER
Look at the note through a filter.
Metameric colours, interference effects,
polarisation effects, …
Figure 5.
Communication symbols for security features on banknotes. Design: Bureau Mijksenaar BV, Ams terdam.
Left-hand column: public features: Feel-Look-Tilt. Right-hand column: cashier features: check with a tool. Look is ‘look
through’, transmission. An additional symbol is being designed for ‘look at’, reflection (a light sun before the note).
Figure 6.
Way-finding features look, feel and tilt. To be used on banknotes.
Figure 7.
The first time DNB used the communication symbols with a figure box was in its interactive training module ‘Genuine or
counterfeit?’ (2004).
5. DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH DENOMINATIONS
The public security features used for euro banknotes in the low denominations (euro 5, 10 and 20) differ from the ones
used for the high denominations (50 to 500). As early as in the preparatory phase of the Euro 2002 Information Campaign
in 2001, this distinction was found difficult to communicate (Figure 8). For each description - as well as for the
illustrations - separate instructions had to be developed for the foil - stripe and patch - and the special inks: the iridescent
stripe and OVI. The message did not really come across to the European public. As late as in December 2004, most cash
handlers (close to 70 %) did not know that the two groups of banknotes bore different security features. Similar results
were found by DNB: one out of ten respondents (9 %) believes there is a foil stripe on the 50 euro banknote. Unlike the 5
euro banknote, the 50 euro banknote has none [84].
The hypothesis that the general public would find it uneasy to have different security features on the low and high
denominations induced DNB to ask the public about this distinction [84, 98]. Surprisingly, the majority stated they did not
mind that the foil (77 %) and special ink (75 %) differed for low and high denominations. About one third, however,
indicated they would like to see the same foil and the same special ink on all the euro banknotes.
Figure 8.
Left: part of ECB leaflet ‘The Euro Our Money’ (2001) explaining the low and high denominations.
Right: part of ECB leaflet ‘Feel Look Tilt’ (2004) explaining the colour changing ink in the euro 50 banknote and the
gold coloured stripe in the 20 euro banknote.
Foil features are more appealing than special ink features
Although not perfect, foil features appear to be more appealing to the public than the special ink features. The foil stripe
on the low denominations is best known by the Dutch (90 %), followed by the foil patch (59 %). The special ink on the
low and high values are mentioned about equally often (OVI 25 %, gold coloured stripe 21 %) [84].
In 2004, the Bank of Canada reported on a survey regarding foil stripes and patches , for which focus groups were shown
several foreign notes. The comments prove to be in line with the findings reported above: ‘The holographic stripe
(Norway 200 Kroner) is very often placed at the top of the ranking, for the ease of use it provides. The stripe is large,
wide and glittery. It is described as 'attention-catching, because it is so shiny and it glitters' [28].
Another explanation for the poor use of the special inks is that people do not like security features if verification thereof
involves tilting, such as shifting colours. Not only was this reported at the 2003 Banknote conference [31], it was also the
conclusion of a study by the Bank of Canada, i.e. that a ‘colour shifting ink is too difficult to see and always ranked
toward the bottom of the list’. On the other hand, the holographic stripe and patch are almost always among the top
selected features for their ease of use [28]. (although the eas iness of checking a foil/hologram may be open to debate!)
‘Feeling’ and ‘touching’ the most common verification method; ‘tilting’ the least common.
To be checked, both foil and special inks require a banknote to be tilted. But tilting as a checking method appears not to
be favoured by the public.
The Central Bank of Russia reported also rather negatively on the use of features that are to be verified by tilting. The
method most frequently used for verifying banknote security features - by common citizens - is touching, by which action
both the physical properties of the paper and the intaglio relief and paper properties are checked (29.9 %, feel). OVI is
reported to be used only by 2.1 %. This report is very negative about the latent image on the RUR notes: ‘For instance,
the method for checking the latent images on banknotes in all denominations has never been recorded‘. The other
recorded public checks are: overall inspection (20.6 %, look ), see-through examination (8.2 %, look ) and overall
inspection of both sides (5.2 %, look ) [29].
6. APPRECIATION OF EURO BANKNOTES
In the four years that the euro notes have been in Dutch citizens’ wallets, appreciation of the designs has grown to an
acceptable report mark of 7 (see Figure 8). Even so, the gap with the appreciation of the former NLG-notes is still wide.
Besides the appreciation figures for the old Dutch guilder notes, Figure 8 provides those for the euro in Austria and for the
US-dollar and Canadian dollar [31, 33, 46, 64]. Also compared to these other countries, appreciation of the euro in the
Netherlands is quite low.
Design-related appreciation growing, except for euro 5
As they grow more familiar with the euro notes, the Dutch are developing preferences as regards the designs of the
various denominations in the first euro series (see Figure 9). Asked specifically to name their favourite denomination in
the series, people named the euro 20 banknote in 2002, the euro 20 and 100 banknotes in 2003 and the euro 500 banknote
in 2005. With each new poll, the difference between numbers 1 and 2 was narrow. The euro 100 banknote turns out to be
found the most pleasing design over the years . Appreciation of the euro 5 banknote has been stable ever since this
denomination was first introduced. Each time it is found ugly; in 2005 by a majority of 55 % (and beautiful by 45 %).
Figure 8.
Overview of the appreciation of the euro in the Netherlands (EUR-NL) over the years 2002 – 2005 and a single
measurement in Austria EUR-A (2002) [33]. The figures may be compared with those for the former national NLG notes
(1999) [1], the USD Large Off-centre Portrait Series (2002) [31] and the CAD Journey notes (2003) [46].
Figure 9.
Appreciation of the first euro series (ES1) in the Netherlands over the years 2002-2005. Closely followed in measure of
appreciation by the euro 20, 200 and 500 banknotes, the euro 100 seems to be the most appreciated design. Every year,
the euro 5 turns out to be the least appreciated design.
7. QUALITY OF EURO BANKNOTES IN CIRCULATION
Many Dutch people think that the euro 5 and 10 banknotes are not of the same quality as the other denominations.
However, the technical specifications for the paper and (most of the) print are the same for all denominations. The
experienced minor quality for the 5 and 10 euro may be explained by the sizes of these two denominations. Another
aspect is the low return frequency, especially of the euro 5 banknote. The notes do not return to the central bank to be
- after sorting - destroyed. As a result people often carry worn euro 5 banknotes in their wallets. Still a majority qualifies
these notes as clean (61 % in 2005), although compared with 2003 this majority is decreasing. The euro 50 banknote is
experienced as significantly c leaner (94 % in 2005). For all denominations it holds that the circulation quality seems
stable, with around 85 % being considered clean (see Figure 10) [84]. The phrasing of the questions is included in
Appendix II.
EUR 5
71 %
61 %
EUR 50
91 %
94 %
Complete Serie
85 %
86 %
Figure 10.
Neatness of the euro 5, euro 50 and complete series over the years 2003-2005 measured by DNB [34, 84].
8. EMOTIVE ASPECTS OF EURO BANKNOTES
In addition to the regular telephone survey, in 2005 DNB conducted an additional survey - for the first time - to measure
the emotive opinion of the design of the euro banknotes [84]. To do so, DNB employed a new instrument developed by
TNS NIPO, called PrEmo (Product Emotion measurement instrument) [43]. PrEmo is a non-verbal, dynamic instrument
measuring emotions evoked by the design of products, packages, adverts, etceteras. The emotions are not measured in a
verbal cognitive way, but by a set of animations. A drawn character represents a specific emotion by its moving
appearance and sounds.
Expected emotions for banknote design are pride versus shame and euro minded versus nationalistic. However, PreMo
proceeds from 10 standardised (see Table 9). The two specific banknote emotions are covered by these 10 (e.g. shame is
covered by satisfaction/dissatisfaction and contempt).
PrEmo measures equal products which differ in appearance. Rather than comparing a euro banknote with a euro coin or a
dollar banknote, DNB compared two well known euro banknotes, one whose design is rather unpopular (euro 5) and one
of a more appreciated design (euro 20). The euro banknotes as shown to the respondents, did not feature their
denominations and were equal in size so as to minimise the effects of factors other than the actual design on people’s
judgement. However, the question still remains if a banknote’s value is of influence on the emotional evaluation of the
euro banknotes. It is plausible that, in the mind of the respondents, the banknotes’ designs are inextricably bound up with
their values.
Positive emotion
Satisfaction
Pleasant surprise
Fascination
Desire
Amusement
Negative emotion
Dissatisfaction
Unpleasant surprise
Boredom
Disgust
Contempt
Table 9.
The 5 positive and 5 negative emotions used in PrEmo, measuring the euro 5 and the euro 20.
Conclusions from the PrEmo survey
The results of the emotion measurement are presented in Figure 11. The two banknotes did not score high on either the
positive or the negative emotion scale from 1.0 to 3.0. In general, people have no strong emotions regarding euro 20 and,
especially, the 5 euro banknotes. These finding also seem to confirm the statement that banknotes have a low public
involvement (which might change in the event of a counterfeit alert or the introduction of a new design), but the low
emotional score could also be caused by the design of the euro notes.
The euro 20 banknote is considered emotionally more positive in almost all respects than 5 euro banknote, except for
amusement. On almost all negative emotions the 20 euro banknote scores significantly lower, except on unpleasant
surprise. On the aspects amusement and unpleasant surprise the scores are equal for both designs.
If future euro banknotes should have a higher emotional appeal, desire, boredom and contempt are the aspects most in
need of improvement. To achieve this goal, TNS NIPO recommended alterations in the design to avoid boredom.
´Appealing colours and pictures can make the euro banknotes more attractive and less dull. Also the size of the notes may
want to be changed. The euro banknotes’ appearance should be changed at some (of these) points to evoke more, and
more positive emotions´ [84].
= euro 5
= euro 20
Figure 11.
The euro 5 and euro 20 banknotes as compared on the PrEmo emotion scale from 1.0 - 3.0. On the left, the 5 positive
emotions; on the right, the 5 negative emotions [84].
Knowledge of public emotions regarding banknotes is limited. Figure 12 shows some banknotes with (probably) a
different - and some, perhaps, higher - emotional appeal than the euro notes. Certainly interesting for future surveys!
Figure 12.
Do portraits evoke stronger emotions than animals? And animals stronger emotions than plants or embryos? And plants
more than buildings or an abstract design? Do banknotes that look sad call forth stronger emotions than banknotes that
express joy?
Top left: CNY 5/Portrait of boy and girl, issued 1980. Bottom left: RWF 100/Zebra, issued in 1978.
Centre: CHF 100/ Embroyo, design, to issued in 2010 or later. Top right: NLG 100/Stone Owl, issued in 1992. Bottom
right: DKK 200/Johanne Louise Heiberg, issued in 1997.
9. MESSAGE OF EURO BANKNOTES
The low emotive profile of the euro notes is the result of the ECB’s banknote design policy. A more striking design would
probably have been rejected by most Europeans, said former EMI president Mr. Alexander Lamfalussy - EMI is the
predecessor of the ECB - speaking at a press conference held at the opening of the euro design exhibition in September
2003. Also former ECB President Wim Duisenberg indicated that, in retrospect, the right banknote design had been
selected. Moreover, he made it clear that the design themes openness to others and bridges linking people were fully
endorsed by the ECB Board [64].
The design policy of the euro banknotes is as follows. The euro notes should [38, 64]:
- be easy to recognise,
- offer protection against counterfeiting,
- be visually attractive,
- be clearly identifiable as European,
- embody a cultural and political message acceptable to all Europeans (openness to others and bridges linking people).
For the second series of euro banknotes (ES2), the Governing Council of the ECB decided in 2004 that the artistic design
would be based upon the current design (of ES1), using the main design features, but allowing changes to ensure the
proper integration of new security features.
This design philosophy of upgrading is typical for the US-dollars and Japanese Yen notes. The European culture is more
a tradition to design and issue a completely new series of banknotes. In the Netherlands e.g. it has always been a positive
national event when the Dutch central bank issued a new banknote. What would be on it? How would it look like?
Returning to the upgrade policy for new euro banknotes, the question is: would it be possible to improve the messages of
the first series? The answer is definitely yes. An analysis of the euro banknotes shows that these messages are quite
complex and basically break down into two parts:
1) the message of the series, 2) the message of each denomination (Table 10). Both are - for each denomination - built up
from three design elements:
1) gate/window (message: openness to others),
2) bridge (message: bridges linking people),
3) EU-flag, ring of stars and the map of Europe (message: European banknote).
Perception level
Series (ES1)
1. Main theme
2. Additional theme
Individual note
3. Note theme
4. Main subject
5. Subject
6. Design element
7. Main image
8. Additional image
EUR 50/Renaissance
EUR 50/Mandolin
EUR 50/Lily
Ages & Styles 1
Europe
Ages & Styles 1
Europe
Ages & Styles 1
Europe
Renaissance
Architecture
Specific gate/window, specific
bridge
Non existing gate/window,
non existing bridge
Gate, bridge
EU flag, map, ring of stars
Renaissance
Music
Music instrument
Renaissance
Flora
Lily
Mandolin
Specific lily
Stringed instrument
EU flag, map, ring of stars
Flower
EU flag, map, ring of stars
1) Ages & Styles: 5 = Classical, 10 = Romanesque, 20 = Gothic, 50 = Renaissance, 100 = Baroque and Rococo, 200 = Age of iron and
glass, 500 = Modern 20th century.
Table 10.
Perception levels of the current euro 50 note, with the gate as main front image. Also two other subjects matching the
Renaissance theme are given as examples: a mandolin and lily, both typical of the Renaissance. The public perceives
mainly the lowest levels 6 and 7 [2].
When asked ‘What kind of pictures, signs and colours do you recall on the euro 50 banknote?’, 9% of the Dutch
interviewees come up with ‘(Part of) a building/historical building’ for an answer (2005). Around 5% mention ‘gate or
door’ and another 5% ‘bridges’. Apparently, people do not see any windows in the euro notes, as this answer is not given.
Awareness of both main images, gate and bridges, is declining: in 2003 people were better able to recall these pictures
[34, 84].
The recollection of the main images on the Dutch notes was much higher. In 1999, around 68 % answered correctly snipe
with regard to the NLG 100 featuring this bird. The abstract NLG 100 still received a score of up to 12 % for stone owl in
1995. The note was named after the watermark in the note [14].
If, as seems to be the case, the bridge communicates better to the public than the gate or door, then why not print the
bridge on the front of the note? The gate or door could be left out; in the years 2002 and 2003, the bridge was better
known by the public than the gate or door. In 2005 both main subjects were mentioned equally often, but only by about 5
% of the respondents [14, 17, 34, 84].
The gate, door/window image on the front of the euro notes seems to be not typical enough to identify a certain
denomination, as was proved with a simple test done by DNB in 2005 (see Figure 13). When the arch of the euro 5 takes
the place of the gate on the euro 50 people usually do - in a black and white image - not notice this at first glance. This
phenomenon is similar to the portraits of presidents on the US dollar notes. Presidents may be switched without
consciously noticing.
The most frequently heard remark refers to the absence of life on the euro notes. By showing old buildings without any
human beings or other forms of life the euro notes are not about people, but about money. Mr. Jacques Hymans writes
‘Most strikingly, the euro notes feature no human figures at all’ [65]. This gap might be partly filled if, e.g., the euro 50
Figure 13.
Euro 5 or euro 50 note? People get confused. When people are asked ‘Give your remarks to this note!’ it may be
concluded that most people see this note as a euro 50. A minority seems to notice that this promotion banknote from HP
(2005) is the 5 euro note with an additional 0 behind the 5. Most remarks are made about: 1) foil stripe instead of foil
patch, 2) HP in stripe, sponsor is HP, 3) wrong dimensions (most say smaller; in fact it is an extended euro 5).
banknote were provided with a typical Renaissance flower like the Lily (see Table 10). Another observation of
Mr. Hymans is that ‘the euro reflects highly the egalitarian idea that ‘Europe’ is all around us - but is nowhere in
particular’. And also: ‘Although the scenes are literally inhabited, in fact they invite ‘habitation’ by the holder of the
notes’ [66].
The seven eras of Ages & Styles are usually either not recalled at all or inaccurately. Discussing the euro design in 1997,
art students at the Utrecht Academy of Arts were not able to list the seven periods by heart. Mistakes are also easily
made as the euro 100 represents two style periods. Printing the name of the note on the banknote, e.g. Renaissance on the
euro 50, may serve as a mnemonic device [14]. A more radical solution would be to abolish the Ages & Styles theme and
concentrate on Europe, now still merely an additional theme. This will further reduce the complexity of the euro notes’
messages. And would it not even be better to select more recognisable European images, like the Eiffel tower (on the
euro 200) or the Mona Lisa (on the euro 50)? This would be far sooner recognised as European by both Europeans and
the rest of the world! And, eventually, to give euro banknotes an unmistakable European identity without any additional
main theme being required, just the EU-flag, ring of stars, the map of Europe and - today – the currency symbol € will
suffice. An example coming close to this concept is shown in Figure 14. This design was entered by the Dutch banknote
designer Jaap Drupsteen in the 1996 Euro Banknote Design Contest [38] and is an example of the so called ‘post-modern
currency iconography’, which started in 1981 in the Netherlands with the issue of the NLG 100/Snipe [66]. The euro
banknotes, bearing no portraits, are also an example of this post-modern currency iconography [66]. The recently
published design for the new Swiss series ‘Switzerland open to the world’, with a potato, an embryo and even a skull in
the watermark of the CHF 1,000, to be issued in 2010, will also join this new banknote design trend (Figure 12). On the
one hand no longer a portrait on the Swiss notes, on the other hand a bit far-fetched subjects. And, from a perception
point of view the following question raises: will the images be characteristic enough for the Swiss public to discriminate
the individual denominations and will they be appreciated by the public?
Figure 14.
Euro banknote design proposed by Jaap Drupsteen, 1996 [38]. The main theme is made up of the value and the colour of
the denomination. The subjects are formed by the public security features, e.g. large portrait watermarks representing
different Ages & Styles. There is no main (additional) image.
10. COUNTERFEITS
In 2003/2004, counterfeit euro banknotes that had turned up in the Netherlands made the headlines, causing a minor
crisis. The media attention reached its peak by the end of 2003, when the Dutch retailers vented their criticis m of
especially the UV features in the euro notes, arguing that the blue lamp no longer sufficed as device for authenticating the
notes. The Minister of Finance was called to account by the Dutch parliament, first in December 2003 and once more in
February 2004 [41, 48]. The Minister based his defence partly on DNB’s surveys of the average public knowledge of
security features!
From low to high public involvement: counterfeits!
While, in general, banknotes may not generate much public involvement, people do care once counterfeits start turning
up. In this very period, DNB organised a focus group discussion on counterfeit notes by TNS NIPO. ‘Because you hear
more about counterfeit money, you think there are more counterfeits in circulation than usual’ it was said [49]. Other
research performed by DNB in 2004 affords insight into how people heard about the counterfeits. Most people read about
this phenomenon in the newspaper or learned about it on television or radio (90.3 %), 13.7 % heard it from other people,
4.8 % knew it from their branch organisation and 4.5 % knew of nothing at all. About 80 % heard of it from one source,
about 15 % from two sources and nearly 2 % from three sources [54].
From the responses obtained through the TNS NIPO survey, it may be concluded that the Dutch feel uncomfortable when
interviewed and having to admit that they do not know much about their money. Often they feel embarrassed, ashamed.
Most respondents say they seldom check their money, if ever. The public’s attitude seems to be that they consider
themselves victims of a counterfeiter. ‘If you find yourself having been handed a counterfeit banknote you have had it’.
And to justify this attitude many find the security features unreliable , you cannot rely on them [49].
Chances of receiving a counterfeit
At the height of this media attention - in February 2004 - people estimate the number of counterfeits mu ch higher than the
number of counterfeits circulating in reality. Entrepreneurs estimated that - within a 5-year period - 0.5 to 10 % of the
euro notes in the Netherlands would be counterfeits. Consumers even expected much higher levels: 30 -100 % [49]. This
caused DNB to make some calculations.
However, since the circulation of euro notes in the Netherlands is unknown, the total volume of discovered counterfeits
could only be expressed in absolute numbers. DNB reported that the total number of counterfeit banknotes identified in
the Netherlands was 26,151 in 2003 and 25,600 in 2004. The fact that the 2003 figure was only 8 % higher than the
number of counterfeits in 2001 – the final year in which the guilder was in circulation – made no impression. Of more
interest to the public is the chance of a person receiving a counterfeit. A first attempt was published by DNB at the
BPC General Meeting in 2004 [60]. One of the conclusions was that the odds of winning a lottery are much higher than
receiving a counterfeit in circulation. Another conclusion was that the total loss incurred by Dutch retailers because of
shoplifting is much higher than the total value of the counterfeits. Later, a better-founded estimate was published in the
Quarterly Bulletin of DNB. While not really specifying a chance of receiving a counterfeit banknote, it made clear that
the total amount of counterfeits per million inhabitants in the Netherlands is lower (1,572 in 2004) than in the rest of the
Euro area (1,901) and the USA (2,711) [98].
Usually the counterfeit level is defined by the number of counterfeits per million notes in circulation, which for the euro
area stands at about 60 in 2005. As far as known to the author, no studies are available on what would be an acceptable
level of counterfeiting in a cash payment system.
New parameter: confidence in banknotes
DNB also decided to poll Dutch citizens’ confidence in the euro banknotes. In addition to the cognitive average
knowledge of public security features, DNB considers this information a more psychological indicator of the public’s
trust in euro notes. Asked for the first time in 2005, the question concerned will be repeated in future polls. The first grade
- on a scale from 1 to 10 - for confidence in the authenticity of euro banknotes is sufficient, but not high: 6.8. And the
grade for protection of euro banknotes against falsification is 6.5.
Women have less confidence in both of these aspects than men. The elderly have less confidence in the protection of euro
banknotes against falsification compared to young citizens.
11. THE METHODOLOGIES EMPLOYED FOR THE DIFFERENT USER GROUPS
11.1 Visually impaired
Just a few days after the introduction of the euro notes surprising pictures appeared in one of the major news papers in the
Netherlands showing how the colour-blind perceive the new euro notes. These citizens hardly see any difference between
the colours of the euro 5 and 10 notes . Also the euro 20 and 500 notes are seen as quite similar colours [12]. DNB also
received a complaint that security features based on colour changing effects, like the OVI in the euro 50, cannot be
discerned by the colour-blind [51].
It became clear that some people had been overlooked by the developers of euro notes. DNB made their apologies to the
Dutch colour-blind and promised to make amends in future euro banknote series.
The group of the visually handicapped people can be subdivided as provided in Table 11, the male colour blind clearly
being the largest group. Clearly more research is needed.
Visually impaired people
1. Colour-blind
2. Partially sighted/low vision
3. Blind a) early blind (< 4 years)
b) late blind (> 4 years)
Total (around)
Male
8%
0.65 %
Female
0.4 %
0.65 %
Total
4.2 %
1.3 %
0.015 %
0.015 %
0.03 %
8.7 %
1%
5.5 %
Table 11.
Overview of the different groups of visually impaired people.
Each subgroup has their specific design requirements for the euro banknotes:
1. Colour-blind: colour combinations (avoid e.g. red-green), discriminating subjects, …
2. Partially sighted: bright discriminating colours, large numerals on contrasting background, …
3. Blind: intaglio tactile marks/texture, different note dimensions, tools like Cash Test, …
Also poor-sighted citizens complained about the legibility of the large numerals on the notes, especially on the euro 5.
And the background to the large numeral on the euro 50 note impairs the legibility of the figure [10].
Dutch blind citizens reported they missed the tactile patterns on all the denominations of the euro banknotes and
preferred the tactility of the NLG-notes. Why the tactile marks on the 200 and 500? We do not have those notes in our
wallets! And: The euro notes may be differently dimensioned all right, but in a shop you do not ask for change in terms
of banknote sizes to facilitate comparing these notes [10]. Since the euro 100, 200 and 500 all have the same height,
tactile marks were designed on the euro 200 and 500 to discriminate these three denominations.
DNB also received some suggestions from the blind as to ways to verify the dimensions of the notes, as a variant to the
Cash Test [e.g. 69].
The Netherlands Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted asked DNB in 2005 for better tactile features on the notes
and a greater difference in length (e.g. 8 mm) between the notes they use daily (mainly the euro 10 and 20
denominations). A standard note height is no problem for the Dutch blind, since this was already the case since 1965 with
the former guilder notes.
11.2 Identification of user groups and their requirements
After DNB had communicated that the former NLG-notes had 20 security features, journalists and Dutch counterfeit
experts were eager to find out how many and which features were incorporated into the new euro notes. DNB’s answer:
37 [e.g. 3]. This answer served as an argument underpinning the security of the euro: counterfeiting would be almost
impossible, and was used several times in other articles about the safety of the new euro banknotes [e.g. 6, 8, 9, 44, 63].
During the counterfeit hype in 2003/2004, DNB grew uncomfortable under this policy as Dutch retailers tried to persuade
DNB into disclosing all the features (‘we know that there are more’).
User level/group
Security features
1. General public
incl. visually impaired
2. Cashiers/retailers
3. Central banks
4. Counterfeit deterrence
Subdivision
Primary
Secondary
Verification aids human senses
Auto recognition device for retailers
Professional cash handlers
Implemented in banknote
5. Forensic
Implemented in systems (copiers, DTP)
-
Examples
Used in television campaign, e.g. 3 features
Used in public leaflet from central bank
UV lamp, IR with viewer
Yes/no detector, also vending machines
CIT-companies, cash recycle machines
Not published.
Screen and scan traps, colour outside euro scale,
rainbow print
Not published
Nano features, taggents, markers, DNA, …
Table 12.
Overview of the user levels/groups of security features in any banknote.
The calculation of 37 features is based on all the security features used, divided over the different user groups as indicated
in Table 12 (see also [2]).
There seems to be a need to know the exact number of security features, since also other central banks in the Euro area
mentioned the figure 37 in their documents. Later this number even increased to 40 [e.g. 81], while another newspaper
wrote more safely ‘the exact amount of security features is a secret’ [97]. The comments made in the media were also
found in a focus group survey commissioned by DNB in 2004: ‘All features are out of date, all have been counterfeited.
Also the hidden features.’ [49]. One of the conclusions of this report was that people grow insecure from too many
security features.
Lesson learned: inform the public on the number of public security features (e.g. 6) and use this as a stepping stone in
remembering the features (slogan: Check all six!).
Level Zero or what induces people to check security features?
A banknote’s quality and typical feel are often the first characteristics to trigger the suspicion that one is dealing with a
counterfeit, especially among cashiers, like retailers. However, this is not a method that permits a description in terms of
an instruction - including pictures – for banknote authentication. And moreover, the characteristics concerned suffer
heavily from circulation: turning from stiff, smooth and free of crumples to soft, limp and ceased.
Such a trigger feature might also be described as a Level 0 feature (Level Zero). A blurred ink jet reproduction is another
example. The public immediately notice there is something wrong with the note and start checking its watermark.
Specific features to initiate Level 0 are often the same as the ones implemented in the banknote to prevent reproduction
(Level 4), like: paper tint, scan and screen traps, colours outside the Euro scale and rainbow print.
11.3 User requirements for security features
In 2002, the Bank of Canada asked respondents to define the ideal security features [28, 46, 47]. Table 13 lists these four
requirements and extends them with three more. The most important requirement seems to be the time needed to check a
security feature. For retailers, this would be around 2 seconds. According to the Central bank of Russia, the time to
control the OVI on the rouble notes is 3.1 s, i.e. the shortest test, while checking the latent image with 18.4 s is most timeconsuming. Checking the relief of intaglio print on the rouble takes 4.0 s, the watermark 8.0 s and the security thread
10.1 s. Although fast, it was also reported that the OVI is only used by 2.1 % of the Russian respondents [29].
Checking features on the reverse side takes additional time and is therefore often omitted. One’s thumb and/or other
fingers may cover a feature when the note is turned, e.g. the OVI on the high euro denominations. Relevant in this context
is also the finding that a cashier does not want to check more than two security features and would rather check just one.
User requirement
1. Fast
2. Easy to use
3. Discreet
4. Reliable
5. Striking
6. Univocal
7. Easy to
communicate
Remarks
It cannot take more than a second or two to find out if the note requires closer examination.
The ideal security feature should not require effort, expertise or machinery. It should be tactile or visual.
The feature can be checked without special skills or knowledge. The feature can be checked intuitively and
under all light conditions.
Cash handlers and banknote tellers do not want the customer to know that the notes received are examined.
‘The ideal security feature would be something you could feel and see right away. But secretly, not
conspicuously.’
Security feature should work every time and be counterfeit-resistant and durable.
Security feature should be striking and provide fun during checking (the playing man: homo ludens).
Security features should be unequivocal, like a yes-no decision.
Features should be easily explainable both personally as in written training material.
Table 13.
User requirements of a banknote. Requirements 1 - 4 are formulated by the Bank of Canada [28, 46, 47].
The settlement of a complete cash transaction takes 19 s and should involve at least the following three efficiency actions:
1) counting the number of coins and banknotes involved;
2) handing over the money and receiving the change;
3) performing an additional check for counterfeits.
For step 3, usually not much time is taken. ‘Shopkeepers seldom find the time to verify the notes received. Some retailers
said they would verify banknotes as a rule if they received counterfeits on a frequent basis’ [49]. Counterfeits will have a
negative influence on the efficiency of cash payments. Shopkeepers will lose time and - if a counterfeit is accepted money.
The 19 s for settling a full cash transaction by retailers was reported in a DNB-study of the efficiency of different means
of payment, conducted under the auspices of the Dutch National Forum on Payment Systems. Cash payments are quicker
than debit card (26 s) and credit card (28 s) payments, but more time-consuming than settling an e-purse payment (14 s)
[53]. It is remarkable that the most widely used definitions of efficient cash payments do not address the time required to
settle the cash payment (see, e.g., ‘A cash payment between two persons is efficient when the total number of coins and
banknotes used - including the change- is the minimum of all possible combinations of the amount of coins and banknotes
needed to realise this cash transaction’ [60]).
In 2004, DNB conducted a survey of the way how different payment instruments, like cash and debit card, are perceived.
From this survey it emerged that most people are averse to cash payment because of the time it takes to (1) search for the
right amount of coins and banknotes and (2) wait for change. Other reasons for aversion to cash payments are: theft and
loss (both safety), shortness of cash and an overstuffed purse (both on ease of use). As to the costs of cash payments,
people are averse to the card holder fee - which grants them access to the ATM - and do not like the loss of interest
bearing cash [78, 99].
Another sustainable competitive advantage of coins and banknotes over other means of payments is that cash payments
are anonymous.
11.4 Retailers
Cash handlers may handle up to 200 or more banknotes a day. This considered, retailers may well be considered key
players in preventing counterfeit circulation. As said, retailers like to check a security feature fast (2 s) and no more than
two features at a time and do so discretely, so as not to invite discussions with clients (Figure 15). A yes-no decision, like
a red-or-green light or a beep, would meet their requirements. In case of a red light, the cashier might tell the client: Look,
it is not me telling it might be a counterfeit, it is the machine. If you do not agree I will ask my boss to come.
Figure 15.
Holding the banknote up to the light can hardly be done discretely. ‘Nobody checks their money. It would feel strange
acting like that, as if I were betraying someone’s trust’ [49].
Some retailers in the Netherlands have counters with lights shining up from below. It is a natural reaction to put the
note(s) from the customer on the counter to avoid errors about the value of the notes handed. While returning the change,
the shopkeeper is able to check discretely and at a glance four euro security features: the watermark, the thread, the seethrough register and the perforation of the hologram!
To help retailers choose an authentication device, DNB was the first central bank to organise a detector test and to publish
the result on its web site www.dnb.nl (in April 2004). The report is based on tests performed on both genuine and
counterfeit euro banknotes. This publication was well received by the retail organisations in the Netherlands and DNB
updates this report twice a year [71].
11.5 Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs)
Especially the euro 5, 10, 20 and 50 notes are more -and-more used in all kind of ATMs (Figure 16c). Feeding the
machines often leads to confusion. The note may be rejected, upon which the customer, now grown insecure, will proceed
to re-feed the note, but this time in a different orientation. The feeding instruction for euro notes is often to 1) push the
note to the left and 2) push the note forward. With a uniform note height the instruction would become simpler and notes
would be less likely to skew.
As far as is known, banknote acceptors receive no landscape or Long Edge First (LEF) oriented noted, but only Short
Edge First (SEF) or portrait-oriented notes. In the case of ATMs, the banknotes are supplied landscape-wise, but more
recently introduced machines also do so portrait-wise [82]. To come to the public’s aid, the banknote designers may need
to study the design of e.g. hotel room keys and telephone cards (see Figure 16a and 16b).
Standard note height
The Dutch were used to a standard note height of 76 mm and length increments of 6 mm in Dutch guilder banknotes. A
banknote series consisting of various lengths and heights, such as the euro banknotes series, was new to them. A survey
conducted by DNB showed that the Dutch consider the euro 5 note too small (height 62 mm) and the euro 100 note too
large (height 82 mm) [49, see also 19]. This criticism is understandable if a recent study of typically European wallet sizes
is taken into account. A note height of 70 – 75 mm would fit best in a European wallet with its typical dimensions of:
(length) x (width) = (200 - 250 mm) x (90 – 120 mm).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 16.
(a) Feeding direction on hotel room key of the Frankfurt Hilton. Mark the tiny notch in the bottom-left corner, which is
there for the visually impaired (2005).
(b) Feeding direction on telephone card issued on the Falkland Islands (1992).
(c) Banknotes are inserted vertically and portrait-wise into banknote acceptors. Picture: bill acceptor at Copenhagen
International Airport (2005).
The Netherlands Bankers’ Association recommended introducing a standard note height in future euro notes, because
[92]:
‘- The use of various automated machines is on the increase.. One uniform standard height will render the use of different
cassettes for the different denominations unnecessary.
- It is easier for consumers to use the machine (smaller notes have a tendency to shift because the machine slots are
designed to accept the largest notes).
- It is easier for cash recycling machines and multi-dimension processing.
- It may be the answer to the complaints that the 5 euro is too small, weak and looks cheap.
- A smaller euro 100 note may be the answer to complaints that the note is too large for an ordinary wallet.
- It may provide efficiency advantages in respect of notes handling logistics.
- A uniform height will bring the euro in line with the other currencies (the standard height varies between
65 mm - 75 mm, worldwide)’.
50
50
thread
fibres
ink
foil
(a)
(b)
Figure 17.
(a) Trend towards the use of more and more bands in a banknote.
(b) Banknote design: landscape orientation.
(c) Banknote design: portrait orientation.
(c)
Usually there are one or two types of cash box inside an ATM. Issuance of the smaller euro 5 notes often requires a third
cassette, which may explain the poor quality of these notes: these notes are not issued by ATMs. Commercial banks are
not very willing to invest in more cash boxes. One of the reasons for not loading low values into ATMs might also be the
need for more frequent refilling. A single note height would lead to one type of ATM cassette, permitting issuance of all
denominations!
A trend in banknotes is the use of bands, by way of a security thread (including the wander zone), foil stripe, fibres and
special ink properties (see Figure 17a). A larger note length may support future designs, while a larger height does not
create more space for these bands.
Vertically formatted banknotes are not (yet) very popular and may be found today in Cape Verde, Israel, Serbia, Sri
Lanka and Switzerland (see Figure 17c).
12. BANKNOTE PSYCHOLOGY
The use of images of banknotes in visual instructions is on the increase in Dutch society, as illustrated in Figure 18. While
not considering taking action to discourage this trend, DNB is understandably not in favour of the use of crosses printed
over euro banknote images as this may be mistakenly interpreted as suggesting that cash as a payment instrument is not
quite reliable or that the banknotes are not accepted everywhere.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 18.
Crosses through banknotes in the Netherlands in 2005.
(a) Sticker used by Dutch retailers to warn customers that they do not accept 100, 200 and 500 euro banknotes.
(b) Instruction by the Amsterdam public transportation system informing the public that the ticket machines only accept
5 and 10 euro notes.
(c) Instruction on ticket machine of the Dutch railroad system: unsuitable for coins and banknotes.
Final: European identity
We do not know to what extent the design of the euro coins and banknotes may help enhance the public’s awareness of a
European identity. What we do know, however, is that the introduction of the euro did not make the Dutch feel more
European. As is reported in the two special Flash Eurobarometers published in 2003 and 2004, 84 % of the Dutch (2003:
90%) said that the introduction of the euro had neither strengthened nor weakened their sense of being European, against
78 % (2003: 80 %) for the Euro area [42, 62].
There are many signs that the designs of the euro coins and banknotes appeal to a sense of European identity, as is
illustrated in this paper. But there seems to be much room for improvement. Perhaps the second euro series will also
satisfy the Dutch journalist who wrote in the first weeks of the euro notes’ circulation: ‘I see characters that do not
inspire me, the letters BCE ECB EZB EKT EKP. Am I living in Eastern Europe or something?’ [11].
After the setback in 2005 as a result of the French and Dutch publics’ ‘no’ to the European Union Constitution, the launch
of the second series of euro notes is an opportunity to show that the EU and ECB are able to create an outstanding and
appealing product with which Europeans like to identify. Appealing European money will foster pride in being European!
13. CONCLUSIONS
1. The euro banknote designs have been accepted by the Dutch public. The notes are appreciated - each year more so and the public’s knowledge of the security features is also high (average of 2.2 in 2005). Each year more people are able
to tell which of the euro designs they prefer.
2. From a design point of view the first series of euro banknotes is a success. However, the present design leaves much
room for improvement and optimization, especially in terms of recognition and suitability for daily use by the public.
3. In general, people feel no strong positive or negative emotions towards the euro banknotes.
4. People experience a (historical) building as the euro banknote’s chief message. The messages of the euro notes appear
to be too complex for the public (Ages & Styles, Europe, gate/window, bridges). The public ’s ability to name
spontaneously the main images, gates/windows and bridges, is poor. More variety in the buildings would increase the
notes’ recognizability and appeal, as would the use of images of living elements like people, animals and/or flowers.
To reduce this complexity, even the main theme Ages & Styles may need to be abolished, creating more room for Europe
as the main theme. The same applies to the gates /windows element.
5. The distinction between low and high euro denominations is not effective as it leaves both the public and retailers
confused about the security features, besides making the public information tools too complex.
6. The average number of security features spontaneously produced by the Dutch public appears to be 2.2 in 2005. To
increase this average, communication should focus first of all on the 15 to 20 % Dutch citizens who cannot tell a single
security feature. In general, these people are found among elderly citizens, citizens in the lower social classes, the less
educated, women and people who do not deal with money (‘non retailers’) on a daily basis.
7. Touch features. The first feel of a (counterfeited) banknote is what triggers the attention of the public and cashiers in
particular.
8. Tilt features - and especially colour switching features - are less popular than feel and look features.
9. Foil features are better recalled by the public at large than special ink features, and, therefore, seem to be more popular.
10. The Dutch consider the euro notes in circulation as clean (86 %). The euro 50 banknote is significantly more judged
as clean (94%) than the euro 5 banknote (61%).
11. For several reasons, the euro 5 euro banknote seems to be less successful than the euro 50 one. In 2005, the Dutch find
this 5 euro note downright ugly.
12. All surveys reported on point in the same direction. Major contradictions are not found.
13. Measuring appreciation seems a better method to determine the public’s opinions about the different euro designs than
measuring emotions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Ton Roos (DNB) for his support, his advice and suggestions throughout my research
project. I am also grateful to Mr. Richard Heuver (DNB) for providing me with the necessary statistics and to
Mr. Fred Collens (DNB) for editing the English text.
APPENDIX I
Key information derived from public polls by DNB
Research variable
1. Sample size
2. Method
3. Interviews by
Specification
2,000 (2002, 2003)
1,500 (2005)
All categories of citizen
(general public)
Telephone
4. Reliability
Around 95 %
5. Accuracy
+/- 1.7 % (at 82 %)
6. Sample period
7. Frequency
8. First measurement
9. Longitudinal
research
10. Anchor note
11. Control questions
12. Report time
13. Costs
14. …
February
Every 2 years
1981
1981-1999 (NLG)
2002 - 2005 (EUR)
NLG 100
EUR 50
Yes
6 Weeks
Around EUR 30,000
Remarks
In 2005 reduced to around 1,500 with preservation of appropriate
accuracy.
18 years and older.
Contrary to selection of focus/target groups.
Before 1999, NIPO used to visit the interviewees at their homes.
As of 2001, the interviews have been conducted by telephone.
All market research has a reliability of 95 %, independent of the
sample size. The accuracy margin of the answers depends on the
sample size.
For 2,000 interviewees and, e.g., p1 = 82 % (meaning: 82 %
answered the question) and for other sample sizes and p1=82 %,
the following margins apply:
n = 300, margin is +/- 4.3 %
n = 1,000, margin is +/- 2.4 %
n = 1,500, margin is +/- 1.9 %
n = 2,000, margin is +/- 1.7 %
4 weeks in February, each week 500/375 respondents
In odd years, except in 2002 (additional poll because of the
introduction of the euro).
In 1981 only appreciation; since 1983 both knowledge and
appreciation.
Clear trends and new systems, e.g. the introduction of UV-lamps
by the Postbank in 1987 and the introduction of the euro in 2002.
Anchor note = banknote model each time included in the survey as
a reference. Important for qualitative judgements.
Including report. Research costs are low.
Table 1.
Overview of the different research variables of the DNB opinion polls measuring knowledge and appreciation of
banknotes.
1. Total number of respondents
2. Total number of answers
3. NIPO average number of security features
4. Don’t know
4/1 (number don’t know/total number)
5. (2 -4) / total number of respondents
6. Wrong: Wadden island not depicted
7. Wrong: Printed barcode
8. Wrong: Signature
9. (2-4-6-7-8) / number of respondents
NIPO 2002
2002
4,770
2.38
226
11 %
2.27
6
3
10
2.26
NIPO 2003
2015
4,463
2.21
372
18 %
2.03
1
3
3
2.02
TNS NIPO 2005
1501
3,515
2.34
220
15 %
2.19
0
3
3
2.19
2.3
2.0
2.2
NIPO 2002
196
150
26
4
2
46
424
0.21
NIPO 2003
229
166
38
5
3
127
568
0.28
TNS NIPO 2005
179
147
40
1
3
66
436
0.29
Used in report: rounding off of item 9
Table 2.
Overview of the data used.
Security features
Partially correct
1. Marks for the blind
2. Type of paper
3. Banknote series numbers
4. Washable, colour fast
5. Cannot be copied on copy machine
6. Other answers
7. Total
8. (7) / number of respondents
Table 3.
Overview of partially correct security features mentioned by the public. These answers count as correct answers.
Appreciation of series as ‘beautiful’
Denomination
NIPO 2002
5
54
10
64
20
69
50
68
100
68
200
69
500
68
Total
460
Total/7
65.7 %
NIPO 2003
49
65
72
65
72
71
71
465
66.4 %
TNS NIPO 2005
45
67
74
71
76
75
77
485
69.2 %
Table 4.
Results for the appreciation of the euro banknotes as a series on the basis of the beautiful score for each of the seven
individual denominations.
APPENDIX II
Phrasing of the questions (DNB)
1. Questions related to the quality of the euro banknotes currently in circulation
The questions as incorporated in DNB’s opinion polls for 2003 and 2005 were:
DNB Question 1 and 2
What is your opinion of the quality of the euro 5 notes? How would you judge these notes in general in terms of soiling,
crumpling, wear-and-tear, writing, repair tape etcetera? Would you say that, on the whole, the euro 5 notes are …
(respondent may choose from the following answers)
[1] very clean
[2] clean
[3] neither clean nor dirty
[4] dirty
[5] very dirty
[6] do not know/no opinion
Same question for euro 50 note: replace euro 5 note by euro 50 note.
DNB Question 3
Let us go back to the euro notes in general. Are you satisfied with the quality level of euro banknotes in circulation in
terms of soiling, crumpling, wear-and-tear, writing, repair tape etcetera? Would you say that, on the whole, the euro 5
notes are … (respondent may choose from the following answers)
[1] very satisfied
[2] satisfied
[3] neither satisfied nor unsatisfied
[4] unsatisfied
[5] very unsatisfied
[6] don't
2. Questions related to confidence in the euro banknotes
DNB – Question on confidence in euro banknotes 1
Now let us talk about something else. Banknotes should be reliable and resistant to counterfeiting.
How would you grade your confidence in the authenticity of the euro banknotes in your wallet?
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
1
2
3
4
5
[6] 6
[7] 7
[8] 8
[9] 9
[10] 10
[11] Absolutely no idea
DNB – Question on confidence in euro banknotes 2
How would you grade the security measures against counterfeiting and forgery of the euro banknotes?
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
1
2
3
4
5
[6] 6
[7] 7
[8] 8
[9] 9
[10] 10
[11] Absolutely no idea
APPENDIX III
Typical Dutch
Received feedback on the introduction of the euro coins and banknotes in the Netherlands
Before and after the introduction of the euro banknotes on 1 January 2002, the Dutch central bank (DNB) received many
reactions to the design of the euro banknotes, either directly from the public or through the media. This public feedback
is collected in this Appendix.
In the years 2002 and 2003, the Dutch public clearly considered DNB one of the chief authorities on the introduction of
the euro, given the question most frequently asked of DNB in these years: Where can I change guilders to euro? In 2004,
How can I retrieve my pension claims? took over the position as most frequently asked question [74].
Circulation
Due to the effect of migration - the Netherlands is now a monetary province of the euro area - it is no longer possible to
know the exa ct circulation of euro notes in the Netherlands, just as in the guilder era DNB could not possibly specify the
amount of guilders in circulation in one of the Dutch provinces. Net issues are used instead, which are defined as the
total amount of banknotes issued banknotes by DNB.
Strikingly, the circulation of the euro 20 note is negative. The reason for this is not so much that the Dutch public would
dislike the 20 euro denomination, but that the euro 20 banknote is often the highest denomination in the ATMs of
neighbouring countries. And these euro 20 notes migrate to the Netherlands, since the euro 50 banknote is most often
provided denomination by the ATMs in the Netherlands.
Looking at the total amount of euro notes in circulation just one conclusion is to be drawn: the euro notes are very
popular, also in the Netherlands. In terms of numbers, since the euro banknotes’ launch in 2002, the total euro circulation
has autonomically grown at a pace of 10 % per year, from around 7.3x109 notes at the new currency’s launch to around
10x109 notes in 2005. In terms of value, an even higher annual growth is measured of around 20 %, from EUR 350.109 at
year-end 2001 in the national currencies to around EUR 525x109 in 2005 [98].
In 2005, an overwhelming majority, i.e. 95 % of the Dutch respondents to be precise, answered that the euro banknotes
are easy to distinguish and manipulate (against 93 % for the Euro zone). People experienced the euro coins as more
difficult to distinguish: only 65 % considered this easy, against 59 % in 2004 (cf.73 % for the Euro area) [102].
From the 12 countries within the Euro area, the Dutch are the ones who most often still count in the old national
currency, the guilder or NLG (2004: 67 %, against 49 % for the Euro zone) [62].
Usefulness of a 1 and 2 euro note
The discussion within the Euro area about the public need for euro 1 and 2 banknotes was certainly not supported by the
Dutch: in 2004, 88 % said not to favour the introduction of a euro 1 banknote (2003: 89%), against 69 % for the total
Euro area (2003: 67 %) [42, 62]. This study’s outcomes are closely similar to other findings [57]. DNB’s position in this
context was not to introduce such low denominations. Apart from respecting the public’s opinion, DNB’s arguments
were that the average quality of these notes would drop below the level deemed acceptable. Also, the costs would be too
high and inefficiencies in cash payments would be created.
Abolishment of 1 and 2 eurocent
Two years after their introduction, the usefulness of 1 and 2 eurocents was called into question in the Netherlands. The
discussions were conducted in a formalised manner within the National Forum on Payment Systems. It was concluded
that savings up to 30 million euro a year could be achieved if the 1 and 2 eurocent coins were abolished. Also from a
theoretical point of view, it was concluded that the efficiency of the denomination structure of the euro cash system
would stand to gain from abolition of the said coins. Another argument was that DNB had learned from repeated
questions in a so-called CentER panel that the public might be in favour of cash payments in shops being rounded off to
the nearest 5 eurocents.
Figure 1.
The one and two eurocents are no longer used in the daily cash payments in the Netherlands. On the national side: a
portrait of Queen Beatrix.
To verify whether the public would agree, DNB organised an empirical trial to evaluate the daily use of the 1 and 2
eurocent coins. This trial was done in the town of Woerden and ran from 26 April - 6 June 2004. Around 130 shops,
catering, gasoline stations and some others participated in this experiment; around 500 points of sale in all. One of the
key questions was whether the cash transactions are settled in less time if the round off rule is used1 .
The outcome of the trial was that 83 % of the Dutch public are in favour of, or indifferent to, rounding off cash
transactions. It had been agreed in advance that the threshold value for the opponents should be less than 20 % for a
countrywide implementation. At 16 % of the opponents, this was the case.
Rounding off cash transactions does not mean that the 1 and 2 eurocents will disappear altogether. The introduction of
the round-off rule in the Netherlands was formalised by the Dutch Minister of Finance, but a withdrawal of the 1 and 2
eurocents as legal tender would need to be decided on by all the Ministers of Finance of the EMU [60]. The Netherlands
are, after Finland, the second country within the Euro zone to introduce a cash round-off rule to the nearest zero/five
eurocents.
The Dutch will not regret this measure judging by European Commission’s finding that 50 % of the Dutch is of the
opinion that there are too many euro coins, against 40 % for the Euro zone. Asked which coins should be withdrawn, the
Dutch answered the 1 cent coin (77 %), the 2 cent coin (69 %) and the 2 euro coin (10 %). In 2005, the Dutch seem to be
more satisfied, although 33 % hold that there are too many coins (against 36 % for the Euro zone [102]).
According to the Dutch - 45 % both in 2004 and 2005 – the withdrawal of the smallest-value coins will not lead to price
increases (the highest score in the Euro zone [62, 102]).
Money illusion
In 2004, DNB reported that the psychological inflation of the euro amply exceeded real inflation. Dutch consumers said
that the price rise over the years 2001 - 2005 is 12 %, while in reality prices went up 8.4 % [88, 89]. This effect was
(partly) explained by Philip Franses, who reasoned that the Dutch people were ready to pay up to an average of 60 %
more in euro than in Dutch guilders. Franses’ study was focussed on e.g. the price people were prepared to pay while on
holiday for a set of towels at the swimming pool or for hiring of a tennis court.
According to Franses, people tend to calculate using the value unit one. If this unit changes, it is difficult to estimate
prices. If a foreign currency unit has a higher value than the home currency unit, people tend to spend more money, an
example of money illusion. In case of a lower value for the foreign currency unit, people tend to spend less [87].
Attitude of the Dutch to the euro
On the basis of the report of the successive Eurobarometer surveys commissioned by the European Commission over the
years 2002 - 2005, it may be concluded that, from the 12 Euro zone countries, the Dutch are least in favour of a
European Monetary Union with one single currency, the euro. Still a large majority of around 70 % of the Dutch support
the euro, while the average for the whole European Union (25 countries) is around 60 %. Especially in 2004, no other
population in the Euro area was more negative than the Dutch, of whom only 39% were of the opinion that the
1
The round-off rule: - round down to zero: cash totals ending on 1 and 2 eurocent,
- round up to five cent: cash totals ending on 3 and 4 eurocent.
introduction of the euro was positive for their own country [62, 67].
As reported before in 2002 [14], the appreciation of a banknote design may depend in part on the inflationary or political
aspects associated with the currency. Although the Dutch attitude may tend towards the negative, appreciation of the
euro banknote designs went up several percentage points in the years 2002 - 2005.
The perceived value of the euro in the Netherlands might have been influenced by the abolishment of 1 and 2 eurocent in
2004.
Design/iconography
Positive reactions given to the design of the euro notes are:
‘All these stripes and cubes on the guilder notes were more for the intellectuals, not for the common man in the street.
The euro notes are different, much better than the guilders’ [7]. And: ‘I like the euro notes; they are beautiful. In
contrast to the dollar notes they are easy to recognise by colour and size’ [9].
But many regretted the end of the highly appreciated Dutch banknotes; people found the euro notes too pale and lacking
in character [14]. These reactions were not only given in 2001 and 2002 but continued to arrive, like the letter to DNB
written on 1 August 2004 on the occasion of the ECB announcing a second series of euro banknotes: ‘Dear Mister
Wellink! Since work on the €-banknotes will start, please kindly use your influence so that the one that designed the 50
guilder Sunflower will receive the assignment for a complete new set of € banknotes. The recent Austrian trash is really
too ugly and too dirty to be trustworthy. Only Dutch designers are capable of creating a valuable and artistic euro’ [58].
This reaction is in line with the TNS NIPO report: ‘The basic attitude of the Dutch to the euro is negative.’ [49].
According to this report the disadvantages as perceived by the public were:
lack of tradition,
price rises,
euro less beautiful,
shortage of change money.
Lack of tradition was explained as ‘not being able to relate to the images of the euro’. This not only accounts for the
perception of higher prices, but also refers to the design of the notes, as a well-known Dutch writer wrote: ‘We should
never have changed to this ugly euro. Yes, that also, these notes are ugly. They become dingy and then look like Polish
zlotys’ [83].
Construction of bridge on euro 5
In 2005 a Dutch news paper reported that the construction of the bridge on the euro 5 would not be common for the
Classical period. The pillars of the bows of the second layer should not be founded in the centre of the bows of the first
construction layer. The same argument is valid for the second and third layer of the aqueduct. The euro 5 notes would be
used as education material in applied mechanics on the University of Groningen [103].
Unmeant symbolism
Some Dutch people discovered unmeant symbolism in the euro notes. The Free Reformative Church were complaining
about the ring of stars in the euro flag on the euro notes, which could be interpreted as paying homage to the Catholic
Church [35].
Classic theme on euro 500?
One comment on the euro banknote design contest in 1996 was that the different styles attributed to the denominations
might have been chosen the other way around: the euro 500 should have been Classical and the euro 5 should have been
Modern. If the euro 5 note were to become a coin, the series would still have a beginning, a first period. And the
Classical period would be more appropriate for the highest value, this being the era we tend to respect more than the
present age.
Wording of security features
As is already known, people have difficulty putting the security features in words [14]. This problem was experienced
again during the preparation of the Euro 2002 Information Campaign. Despite a careful description, confusion occurred
about the features. Even the (expected) more simple ones, like a security thread and a foil stripe were mixed up in the
Dutch media when the first counterfeited euro notes appeared in July 2002: ‘… a silver security thread and a type of
hologram’ [23] and ‘… the silver thread through the note… and the silver-coloured stripe…’ [24]. The security thread in
the euro notes is not silver, and held against the light it is dark-coloured.
Communication consultants rather speak about the glossy gold stripe instead of iridescent ink or about tactile relief than
intaglio. But, apparently, these terms are still too difficult, given the fact that the public does not seem to use them. Even
the central bank sometimes has to search for the right words, like in this interview with the Dutch Governor: you should
look at the number of … what is their name again … fibres [44].
Listening to the Dutch interviewees at TNS NIPO learned that the public describes the foil, the hologram as: silver strip,
silver thing, silver sticker, glimmer, silver, reflective strip, hologram colours, rainbow colours, turning, turn round thing,
moving, moving pictures.
The DNB research conducted in 2004 showed that security features may also be misinterpreted [49].
The survey commissioned by OLAF also reported confusion about public security features: ‘the hologram was often
confused with the watermark or the iridescent stripe, and the watermark, with the security thread.’ Here, too, the terms
used to refer to the features are probably too difficult for the majority of people, since the report continues with: ‘On the
other hand, the explanations given by participants showed that they were familiar with some of the security features’
[68].
In 2004, the ECB was no longer content with the first verbal definitions of the euro security features. For the new ECB
communication tools, the vocabulary of the public features was made less technical in order to be better accessible to the
public at large.
Successful terms for public security features typically have one or two syllables and describe the feature in words that the
public understands. Brand names (DOVID, MVC, Kinegram, STEP, etcetera) or the correct technical name (iridescent
pigments) should be avoided. Seen thus, see-through register and security thread are also not appropriate. There is a
public need to refer to coins, banknotes, and security features by names [e.g. 14, 90]. To be sure, if the terms describing
the security features are well understood, public tests should be performed.
Security features are complex and experienced as untrustworthy
Feedback on the first series of euro notes also showed that public security features are complex, and that some are too
complex. Especially the holographic foils on the euro notes are criticised. Foil manufacturers seem to be on the wrong
track given the fact that the holograms on the four highest denominations of the euro banknotes are awarded because of
their ingenious complexity of the images [30]. Two remarks from the focus group study of DNB in 2004 illustrate the
complexity experienced: ‘You have to watch too many things. I am already happy that I can discriminate between the
notes.’ and ‘I would only look at the colour and the foil stripe… but what they should look like I do not know’[49].
Signature
All euro banknotes bear the ECB President’s signature. At 1 November 2003, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet became
President of the ECB and the signature of Mr. Wim Duisenberg was replaced. When people got the first notes in hands
with the signature of Mr. Trichet, they doubted the genuineness of these notes. Retailers, bank employees and - of
course - collectors asked DNB about this changed signature. Many people do not know that banknotes with both
signatures (Duisenberg and Trichet) are in circulation [61]. Other public re marks were that the President Trichet was not
yet President in 2002 (the year on the notes did not change to 2003 [61, 79, 104].
As changing the signature on banknotes creates small variations in the banknotes, it is a questionable custom from a
public communication point of view. On the one hand, the issuing authority expects that the public will notice small
changes in a counterfeit banknote, while on the other hand the banknotes are changed by a signature; this seems
inconsistent.
It is also not optima l for automatic banknote processing if the note undergoes changes during circulation, for the changed
area often needs to be covered during fitness inspection.
To the public, the signature seems to be unimportant, for only 3 % recall having seen a signature on the euro notes [84].
Surprisingly, collectors do not score much higher, witness the fact that a magazine for banknote collectors asked its
readers on the basis of a photograph showing the two signatures: ‘Which of the two is Duisenberg’s?’ [86].
Als o a recently published study in Currency News reports that the signature is the least important feature for user levels
1, 2 and 3 [94].
In most countries, signatures on banknotes are not legally required, though. It is a custom that dates back to the times
when banknotes were signed by hand by the central bank and banknotes were coupons that were freely exchangeable
against coins. Today the signature signifies that the new design has been approved by the President or Governor. This
meaning would argue in favour of never changing a signature on a given banknote design.
Mr. Wim Duisenberg’s signature has been printed around 3.5x109 times on NLG notes and around 25x109 times on euro
notes. For both currencies, the same signature was used, i.e. the one first used on the NLG 50/Sunflower issued in 1982!
[15, 93].
Date on banknotes
Several customs are found for providing a date on the banknote:
- approval date/year of the printing proof,
- date/year of first issue,
- date/year of a new president/treasurer/governor.
When a new Treasurer and/or the Secretary of the Treasury is appointed in the USA, a new series is created to
accompany the introduction of the new signature(s). The USD 20 note in the 1996-2001 series differs from its
predecessor in that it features a larger off-centre portrait. The Series in question breaks down in to the 1996 series, the
1999 series and the 2001 series. The relevant year is printed on the front of the notes. The follow-up to these Series
1996-2001 is the 2004 Series (the first to feature more colours).
Sometimes a second date can be found on the notes, the year of production. This is e.g. the case on Canadian dollar notes
which show on the reverse side, in small print: printed in 2000/imprimé en 2000, and the year of issue on the front.
Like the signature, also the date on the banknotes is not something the general public will remember by heart. Just 1 % of
the Dutch people recall that euro banknotes contain dates [17, 34, 84].
Numbering of banknotes
The number on the euro notes is not a public security feature, but serves as information for the central banks (ECB plus
National Central Banks or NCBs). Especially during the first months in 2002, the numbering system of the euro
banknotes, which was not made public by the ECB, was a subject of much discussion and speculation. Within a few
days the correct translation of the letters circulated on the internet (P = DNB or for the public The Netherlands). Little
more time was required for decoding the letter in the plate number on the front of the notes (G = Joh. Enschedé). Its
policy being that correct solutions should be affirmed, the ECB quickly provided standard answers to all the NCBs. Later
all the NCB or country codes could be found on the ECB website.
Some more mathematical skills were demonstrated by a Dutch student. He contacted DNB in January 2002 saying he
had found the numerical equivalent of the country code (P = 26). DNB confirmed the calculation and Mr. Antens
published the calculation of the check digit 9 on the euro notes [25].
Communication and training
Anticipating on questions
Aware of the public’s appreciation and interest in the NLG notes, in 2001 and 2002 DNB prepared several publications
dedicated to the design of the new euro coins and banknotes, like the colours (proposed by DNB), the main images, the
security features and the signature of Mr. Duisenberg [3, 4, 5, 15, 18, 20]. Also absent islands - Wadden, but the island
of Texel on the notes! - were explained by DNB [13].
Influence of training on knowledge
Providing training sessions in authentication on the basis of security of features is very helpful, as was demonstrated by
the Pierre Mèndes University, which found that cashiers' awareness of security features had doubled after attending the
training sessions (from, on average, 3.5 to 7 features). In preparing a training programme one needs to keep in mind a
conclusion of the Bank of Canada: Without meaning or relevance, there is little motivation or interest to learn more
about security features [28]. The question for central banks: how to maintain over time the public knowledge of the
security features learned?
Dutch citizens might be expected to know more about the euro 20 and euro 50 notes, as these notes were depicted in
public communication tools like leaflets, advertisements, posters etcetera. But no proof for this could be found in the
research conducted.
Some fun in public information
Although there is no real evidence, it seems that a modicum of fun in public information appeals to the general public. In
the training CD-ROM ‘The new colour of money’ from the Federal Reserve System, issued in 2004, for example, the
fluorescent fibres are represented as wriggling worms. The philosophy underlying this use might be the playing man, the
homo ludens. It is clear that this way of communicating should be implemented prudently, since people also seem to
expect serious information on banknotes and some dignity. Security features could also be promoted with the help of
cartoons/comic strips, as experienced in the Netherlands and elsewhere.
Communication concepts
Before a banknote is designed, the communication concept should be established. Which public features will be
promoted? Is there a theme? Are there stepping stones to remember them? Do they appeal to the public?
TNS NIPO suggested drawing up a ranking of which features should be checked first [49]. Looking at the average
number of security features known by heart (around 2), it seems logical to select a maximum of 3 features to be checked
first. Table 1 presents a possible communication mix of security features based on the Feel-Look-Tilt principle.
Public
Security features
Feel
Look
Tilt
Front
Reverse
+
o
+
o
+
o
Table 1.
A model for the marketing mix of six public features in a banknote.
+ = primary public security feature
o = secondary public security feature
Slogans
The slogan Feel-Look -Tilt was developed as part of the information campaign after the notes were designed and printed.
An analysis shows that the slogan does not really cover the four main security features, since Feel is missing, as is
illustrated in Table 2. Learned feedback: define the public security features before the slogan is made.
The slogan was first introduced as Look -Feel-Tilt. It was successful during the introduction campaign, since 45 % of the
people recalled this slogan unprompted [31]. By the end of 2004, the slogan was known less well.
Euro Series 1
1. Watermark
2. Thread
3. Foil
4. Special ink
5. Tactile properties
6. See-through register
Slogan Feel- Look-Tilt
LOOK
LOOK
TILT
TILT
FEEL
LOOK
Communication medium
TV commercials,
comprehensive leaflets,
posters, …
Detailed brochures, electronic learning modules, …
Table 2.
Overview of the main public features of the euro banknote (ES1). The 4 main public security features are based on look
and tilt. In italics the secondary public features.
DNB Governor Wellink devised a creative variation on the theme: Look-Feel-Turn around (in Dutch: Kijken-VoelenOmdraaien) [40].
Other slogans
One of the first slogans to promote money dates back to 1813 and was used by an English coin manufacturer: Pure
copper preferable to paper! (Currency Museum of the Bank of Canada). Today it seems to become a trend to have a
slogan for the introduction of a new note. The motto for the new Swiss banknote series in 1995 was 5 easy to check and
the introduction slogan of the new USD-notes in 2004 was: Safer. Smarter. More secure.
A new slogan might be Look for the colour, colour being the most characteristic property of a banknote. The public
security features could be based on the same colour as the note. In a blue note, for example, all the public features are
blue. i.e. a blue watermark, a blue foil, a blue thread, blue tactile areas, blue fluorescent fibres etcetera. The same goes
for a green note, and so on. (Make sure that the colour blind are also able to use this colour marking!)
Quality and other remarks
Although produced within strict tolerances, minor differences occur between euro notes of one denomination, the reason
being that they are produced at 9 accredited paper mills and 15 different printing works. The collectors were among the
first to spot these small variations. Later, in the spring of 2005, one of the major newspapers in the Netherlands
headlined: Poor printed new fifties look like counterfeits! [76]. By the end of 2005 Mr. Douwe Brongers published also
about the variations in uniformity of euro banknotes [104].
Also the wandering security thread may mislead judgement. In DNB’s most recent survey, interviewees came up with
answers like There is something wrong with this note, the watermark has moved too close to the edge. This survey was
prompted by the wish to back up DNB’s statement that people are very well able to distinguish genuine and counterfeit
notes from each other if the public security features are used [100].
A stable production is also necessary for vending automates: colour, opacity, thickness and other measurements critical
for acceptance by an ATM require a constant, stable production.
Special substances in the banknotes
The discussion about TBT (tributyltin) in the euro banknotes was never a really topical issue in the Dutch media. TBT is
used as a stabiliser, e.g. in food packaging, textiles etc. 1 kilogra m of euro banknotes may contain 7.5 micrograms of
TBT. The ECB responded that the average person would need to eat more than 2,500 euro banknotes a day over a
prolonged period of time to cross the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI).
Some more attention in the Netherlands was given to the emission spectrum of the euro, published by some researchers
from the University of Utrecht. They wanted to know whether, as they expected, europium was used in the euro notes!
[16]. DNB answered that this was possible. Responsible for the luminescence of the euro notes are both organic and
inorganic pigments, which may contain rare earth elements like europium.
DNB also received a question from a cashier concerning the presence of colophony (rosin) in the euro banknotes.
Colophony may cause allergic reactions and is regularly used in commercial paper types. The answer is that colophony is
neither used in the banknote paper production, nor in the inks.
Remarks about the cotton used for the euro
In 2004, DNB was approached by the non-profit organisation Solidaridad about the use of cotton for banknote paper
from small farmers. Their complaint concerned a lack of fair trade, since the cotton production in China and the USA is
largely subsidised. DNB reacted positively and organised some trials at paper mills using cotton coming from small
farmers in Peru, India and Uganda [96].
The concept of fair trade should be kept segregated from genetically modified cotton and biological friendly produced
cotton; both were no item for Dutch journalists.
REFERENCES
Marked reference numbers refer to references used in Appendix III.
1.‘Nederlandse bankbiljetten. De bekendheid en waardering van bankbiljetten’ NIPO, prepared for De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam
March 1999
2. De Heij, H.A.M.; ‘The design methodology of Dutch banknotes’, Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques III, Proceedings of
SPIE Vol. 3973 (ISBN 0 - 8194 - 3591- 0), San Jose, California USA 27 - 28 January 2000
3. Albers, Joyce;’Van ontwerp tot biljet: DNB begeleidde het euro 200 biljet’ De Florijn, Jaargang 3, Nummer 14, De Nederlandsche Bank NV,
Amsterdam 30 augustus 2001
4. ‘Echtheidskenmerken eurobankbiljetten en -munten’ DNB Magazine, Nummer 3/4 2001, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 2001
5. Hoogendoorn, Marijke’De kleuren van de euro’ De Florijn, Nummer 19, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 22 November 2001
6. ‘Voelen, kijken en kantelen’ De Telegraaf, Amsterdam 29 December 2001
7. Van Walsum, Sander;’Gulden was nooit trots van de natie’ Volkskrant, Amsterdam 31 December 2001
8. De Boer, Jeroen and Paul van Horn;’In het sombere scenario komt de omslag na het tweede kwartaal’ Beursplein 5, Amsterdam 2 January 2002
9. ‘Eurobiljetten betrouwbaar, maar lijken op Monopoly -geld’ Volkskrant, Amsterdam 2 January 2002
10. ‘Geen euforie onder slechtzienden’ NRC, Rotterdam 3 January 2002
11. Poortinga, Sipco;’Paniek tijdens de eerste eurodagen’ Metro, Amsterdam 7 January 2002
12. Van Goor, Meinard;’Kleuroblind’ NRC, Rotterdam 10 January 2002
13. Hoogendoorn, Marijke;’Texel stond er eerst niet op!’ De Florijn, Number 1, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 10 January 2002
14. De Heij, H.A.M.;'A method for measuring the public's appreciation and knowledge of banknotes' Proceedings of SPIE, Optical Security and
Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques IV, Volume 4677, San Jose USA 23 - 25 January 2002
15. Hoogendoorn, M. ‘De euro heeft ook iets Nederlands!’ De Florijn, Nummer 2, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 24 January 2002
16. Suyver, Frank and Andries Meyerlink;’€uropium beveiligt de €uro’ Chemisch2Weekblad, 16 February 2002
17. ‘Euro banknotes. A study about the awareness and recognition of the Euro banknotes among the Dutch public’, TNS NIPO, prepared for De
Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam April 2002
18. Hoogendoorn, Marijke;’Bank verzorgt de 5 en 50 eurobiljetten’ De Florijn, Nummer 8, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 18 April 2002
19. Lampe, W.’Acceptance of the euro banknotes and coins in Germany’ Deutsche Bundesbank, Banknote Printers’ Conference, Prague 27-30 May
2002 – confidential
20. Dijkstra, Marlies.;’Kennis en waardering eurobiljetten Rapportcijfer 7’ De Florijn, Nummer 12, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 27 June
2002
21. ‘Rating’ Quaterly Bulletin, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam June 2002
22. 'A Focus Group Study to Assess Target Audience's Reactions to Proposed Next-Gen Currency Security Features' Deloitte and Touche and
Shugoll Research, prepared for U.S. Treasury Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Washington USA June 2002
23. ‘’Goede’ valse eurobiljetten duiken op’ Parool, Amserdam 30 July 2002
24. ‘Ook in Nederland valse eurobiljetten’ NRC Rotterdam 30 July 2002
25. Antens, Coen;‘Bankbiljetten en de Primera División’ N&T Wetenschapsmagazine, July/August 2002
26. ‘Bestrijding van namaak eurobiljetten’ DNB/Kwartaalbericht, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam September 2002
27. Hoogendoorn, Marijke;’De P is niet zo Nederlands meer’ De Florijn, Nummer 22, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 27 December 2002
28. 'Familiarity With And Attitudes Toward Canadian Bank Notes and Reaction To Next Generation Security Features' Research Dimensions,
prepared for the Central Bank of Canada, Toronto - Boston December 2002
29. Lyutov, V.V. and A.V. Yurov;'Experience of application of security features for banknotes of the Bank of Russia' St. Petersburg 2002
30. ‘2002 Holography Awards demonstrates the industry’s innovation’ Product & Image January/February 2003
31. De Heij, H.A.M., Lisa a. DiNunzio and Olivier Strube; 'Comparence EUR - USD Banknotes Public's Appreciation and Knowledge' De
Nederlandsche Bank NV, US Treasury BEP and European Central Bank, Presented at Banknote 2003, Washington DC, USA, 2-5 February 2003
32. ‘Education: Costly but it works’ Currency News, Banknote 2003, Washington DC, February 3 2003
33. ‘Evaluiering des OeNB/Ö3-Gewinnspieles: “MEHRscheinchen”’ Institut für Empirische Sozialforschung, prepared for Oestterreichische
Nationalbank, Vienna, February 2003
34. ‘Euro banknotes. A study about the awareness and recognition of the Euro banknotes among the Dutch public’ NIPO, prepared for De
Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 1 April 2003
35. Steenbeeke, Martin:’Vrije Hervormden boycotten de euro’ NRC, Rotterdam 17 April 2003
36. ‘Kennis en waardering van bankbiljetten’ DNB/Kwartaalbericht, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam June 2003
37. Hoogendoorn, M.;’Bekend, maar niet zo mooi’ De Florijn, Nummer 14, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 25 July 2003
38. ‘Euro banknote design exhibition’ European Central Bank, ISBN 92-9181-393-1, September 2003
39. Bos, Martine and Julie Visser;’Creating foil for Euro banknotes with public appeal’ Overall report qualitative research, TNS NIPO, prepared for
De Nederlandsche Bank/ECB, Amsterdam 5 November 2003 - confidential
40. ‘Veilig en efficiënt betalingsverkeer verhoogt de welvaart’ Maatschappij Belangen 27 November 2003
41. ‘Brief van de Miniser van Financiën (Nr. 17)’ Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Vergaderjaar 2003-2004, SDU Uitgevers, ’s-Gravenhage 2003
42. ‘The €uro, two year later’ Flash Eurobarometer 153, Taylor Nelso Sofres/EOS Gallup Europe, prepared for European Commission, Dec. 2003
43. Desmet, Pieter M.A., ‘Measuring emotions’ Delft University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design (no dat e, 2003?)
44. Smit, Jan and Thieu Vaessen;’Gewend aan de euro? Nee, wie wel?’ HP De Tijd, The Hague 6 January 2004
45. ‘Nederlanders het negatiefst over euro’ NRC, Rotterdam 14 January 2004
46. Setlakwe, Linda, Lisa A. DiNunzio;’Comparative analysis of public opinion research in the U.S. and Canada’ Bank of Canada and United States
Treasury Department, Proceedings of SPIE, Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques V, San Jose USA, January 2004
47. Church, Sara E. and Linda Setlakwe;’Analysis of counterfeits and public survey results as design input’ Bank of Canada, Proceedings of SPIE,
Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques V, San Jose USA, January 2004
48. Zalm, G.; Answers of the Minister of Financeto questions of Dutch Parlement ‘Kamervragen Crone inzake valse euro’s’ and ‘Kamervragen
Aptroot en De Grave inzake valse bankbiljetten’, February 2004
49. Bos, Martine, Julie Visser;’Beleving echtheidskenmerken en falsificatie euro bankbiljetten’ Report B6334, Prepared for Winkelman en Van
Hessen and De Nederlandsche Bank NV, TNS NIPO Amsterdam 12 February 2004
50. Huisjes, Bert;’Nieuwe vijftigjes zo slecht gedrukt dat ze vals lijken’ De Telegraaf, Amsterdam 14 March 2005
51. E-mail to DNB from Ms. P. Mart ens, 23 March 2004
52. ‘Geen stortvloed aan vervalste euro´s in Nederland’ Press release De Nederlandsche Bank NV, 29 March 2004
53. ‘Betalen kost geld’ Werkgroep Kostenonderzoek Toonbankbetaalproducten, Maatscahppelijk Overleg Betalingsverkeer, De Nederlandsche
Bank N.V., March 2004. A summery ‘The cost of payments’ can be found in the Quaterly Bulletin of DNB, March 2004
54. Vet, R.B.M.;’Resultaten enquête vals geld (uw vraag t.bv. persconferentie jaarverslag), internal document, De Nederlandsche Bank NV,
Amsterdam 25 May 2004
55. ‘Feel Look Tilt’ Public information leaflet, European Central Bank, Frankfurt May 2004
56. Meijer, Rien; ‘Nieuw eurobiljet in de maak’ De Telegraaf, Amsterdam 28 July 2004
57. ‘Euro Bus June/July 04’ GFK Marktforschung for the ECB, July 2004 – confidential, available for central banks
58. Letter to President Wellink, sender known by DNB, 1 August 2004
59. ‘Euro banknotes: first years of experience’ European Central Bank, Monthly Bulletin August 2004
60. De Heij, Hans and Jeanine Kippers;’Efficient cash payments with euro coins and banknotes in the Netherlands’ De Nederlandsche Bank NV,
presented to Banknote Printers Conference, Dresden, 6 - 9 September 2004 - confidential, available for central banks
61. Arendshorst, H. ‘’Nieuwe’ bankbiljetten gesignaleerd in Nedeland’ P -Florijn Nummer 12, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 4 Nov. 2004
62. ‘The Euro, 3 Years Later’ Flash Eurobarometer 165, Taylor Nelson Sofres/EOS Gallup Europe, prepared for European Commission, Dec. 2004
63. Dijkstra, Marlies;’Een nieuwe generatie staat voor de deur’ DNB Magazine Nummer 4, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 2004
64. De Heij, H.A.M.; ‘Attractive banknotes… a question of design management’ Keesing Journal of Documents & Identity, Issue 9, 2004
65. Hymans, Jacques E.C.;’Money from Mars? The euro banknotes and European identity’ Smith College Northampton, MA 01063 2004
66. Hymans, Jacques E.C.;’The Changing Color of Money: European Currency Iconography and Collective Identity’ European Journal of
International Relations, SAGE Publications and ECPR-European Consurtium for Political Research, Vol. 10(1): 5-31 DOI:
10.1177/1354066104040567, 2004
67. ‘Nederlanders het negatiefst over de euro’ NRC, Rotterdam 14 January 2005
68. Gentaz, E.;’Evalutation of multi-sensory training in the detection of counterfeit banknotes for retail cashiers in Europe’ Centre Nationale de la
Recherche Scientifique, Université Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble, France 17 January 2005
69. Sp oelstra – van der Veen, H.; Letter to DNB, ‘euromaatje’’ Assen, 3 February 2005
70. ‘Professional cash handlers. Survey in 12 countries for European Central Bank’ TNS NIPO, prepared for European Central Bank, Amsterdam
7 February 2005 - only available for central banks - confidential, available for central banks
71. De Heij, Hans .A.M.;’Life Cycle Analysis of Security Features in Banknotes From Central Bank to Cashier’ De Nederlandsche Bank NV,
Presented at Banknote 2005, Washington DC, USA, 20 – 23 February 2005
72. Mörk-Hamilton, Karin;’Designing Banknotes: Optimizing Security Features’ Crane AB, Presented at Banknote 2005, Washington DC, USA,
20 - 23 February 2005
73. Treinen, H.;Seeing is believing’ Summary of a study. Wissenschaftszentrum NRW, Institut Art beit und Technik, no date, received at the Banknote
2005. An earlier version was - confidential - presented in April 2004 to the Banknote Printers’ Conference in Dresden 6 - 9 September 2004
74. Brautigam, Margot;’Informatiedesk: 60.000 vragen en antwoorden’ P-Florijn Number 5, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 1 March 2005
75. ‘Holier than thou – Louisenthal introduces new transparent feature’ Currency News Volume 3, Number 3 March 2005
76. Huisjes, Bart;’Nieuwe vijftigjes zo slecht gedrukt dat ze vals lijken’ De Telegraaf, Amsterdam 14 March 2005
77. Van der Woude, M.;’Analysis space versus public knowledge’, De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam 15 March 2005 – confidential
78. ‘Hoe consumenten betaalmiddelen beleven: een publieksmeting’ DNB-Kwartaalbericht De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam March 2005
79. ‘Een vals bankbiljet, wat nu?’ DNB Magazine Number 3, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 2005
80. ‘The future of cash’ Brochure of CPR Billets, AGIS Consulting, Scan Coin and EFMA, April 2005
81. Crok, Mark;’Kijk goed uit je doppen’ Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, April 2005
82. De Heij, Hans;’Curved banknotes. Can the paper maker help?’ De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Banknote Printers’ Conference Paper Committee
Meeting, Warsaw 17 – 20 May 2005 – confidential, available for central banks
83. De Winter, Leon;‘Poging tot belazeren’column, Elsevier, Amsterdam 21 May 2005
84. ‘Euro banknotes. A study about the awareness and recognition of the Euro banknotes among the Dutch public’, B-9073, TNS NIPO, prepared for
De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 17 May 2005
85. Van Renesse, Rudolf L.; Optical Document Security’ Third Edition ISBN 1-58053-258-6 2005, Artech House Boston London 2005
86. Leserpost, Münzen & Papiergeld, Regenstauf, Germany June 2005
87. Peters, T.;’Het europrobleem dat zijn we zelf’ Intermediair #26, Amsterdam 30 June 2005
88. ‘De feiten: Gevoelsinflatie en de euro’ Nieuwsbericht, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 8 July 2005
89. Nieuwsbrief, De Nederlandsche Bank, 22 July 2005
90. ‘Weer een Duisie weggepaft’ Metro, Amsterdam 10 August 2005
91. Sonke, Judith and Julie Visser;’Study on the effectiveness of pictograms on euro banknotes’ TNS NIPO, prepared for De Nederlandsche
Bank/ECB, Amsterdam 19 August 2005
92. Willemsen, Yvonne;’Input from the Netherlands Bankers Association on the features of the new euro’ e-mail, Nederlandse Vereniging van
Banken, Amsterdam 22 August 2005
93. De Heij, Hans;’Ook handtekening Duisenberg stabiel’ Florijn De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam Augustus 2005
94. Ionov, Victor;’Assessing the quality of banknotes’ Currency News, Volume 3, Number 8 August 2005
95. Hoogendoorn, Marijke;’Geldkoffer voor scholieren’ Florijn Nummer 17, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 8 September 2005
96. Van der Woude, Marcel;’Inzet van ‘eerlijke’ katoen bij productie bankbiljetten’ Florijn Nummer 17, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam 8
September 2005
97. Salome, Robert;’Bank onderschat vervalser’ Algemeen Dagblad 10 September 2005
98. ‘Actuele ontwikkelingen in het betalings- en effectenverkeer’ DNB/Kwartaalbericht, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam September 2005
99. Jonker, Nicole;’’Payment Instruments as Perceived by Consumers – a public survey’ DNB Working Paper No. 53, De Nederlandsche Bank NV,
Amsterdam September 2005
100. Hoogendoorn, Marijke;’De dag van … Marco Wind’ P-Florijn Number 20, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, Amsterdam, 20 oktober 2005
101. Boersema, Theo;’Comprehensibility of graphical symbols for clearifying security features’ Delft University of Technology, Presented at ‘Annual
Meeting of the Europe Chapter of the American Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’ Turin, October 2005
102. ‘The euro, 4 years after the introduction of the banknotes and coins’ Flash Eurobarometer 175, EOS Gallup Europe, prepared for European
Commission, November 2005
103. Van Andel, Pek;’1.241 miljoen foutjes’ NRC , Rotterdam 6 December 2005
104. Brongers, Douwe;’No trusting appearances? Variations in uniformity of euro banknote no cause for alarm’ Keesing Journal of Documents &
Identity, Issue 15, 2005