It seems like that at first galnce doesn't it? Yet, I wonder at the cost of handling cash? Its certainly not zero. Think about the front line cash handling businesses that tend to get robbed, petrol stations, fast food outlets, etc. I'm sure the bean counters at these establishments would have something to say about the inherent cost of dealing with cash. I don't have any figures at all, yet I'd not be surprised if it worked out to be a higher cost than cards.
Let's not even talk about the intangible "risks". There's the actual equipment itself (cash registers), the time taken to process the transaction (counting and adding up seems like a taxing task for a large number of cheap wage-slaves out there), people giving stupid change (paying large amounts with small change, or small amounts with big notes), the time taken to bank the funds (visiting a bank, which are only open during business hours, so you must do it while on the clock).
But back to the risks, there's also mishandling (giving incorrect change), employee theft, money laundering, etc.
Most businesses seem to consider the whole cost of Amex (for the sake of argument 2%) and think of it as "OMG 2%!", and that the cost of V/M is only (again for arguments' sake) 1% - not realising that the difference between the two is only 1%. I'm sure in reality that amount is even less.
I have said often before, and can't stress enough, that if a business thinks ostracising the fraction of their customers who ultimately only costs them a fraction more, then they are incredibly naive. Sorry if that sentence doesn't make sense. Let me try and illustrate.
Say your business turns over $3000 a day
Say 1/3 of your customers pay using Amex if they could
So $1000 paid via Amex
Costs you $20 in fees (still going by my exaggerated 2% fee)
Cost you $10 more than if the customers paid via V/M
$10 frackin' dollars out of $3000!