advertisement
advertisement

Amazon Learns Why Placeholder Headlines Are Bad Ideas

Written by Frank Hayes and Evan Schuman
April 4th, 2012

Journalists know—through painful experience—that you should never type in a placeholder headline unless you’re OK with it being accidentally published. The more embarrassing the headline, the more likely it will be to publish. Unfortunately, no ever shared that lesson with Amazon. When displaying an image for a drill bit set, someone wrote in the published product shot: “Some copy that indicates these are helpful instructions.”

To see it, you need to call up the drill set and click on the image to make it larger. In case Amazon fixes it before you have a chance to look, we grabbed this screen capture. [Note: As anticipated, Amazon has now fixed this image.] Not clear if this picture was generated by the manufacturer—Irwin—or if it was done by an Amazon person, but Amazon should check the images before they’re published on its site. Then again, if Sears doesn’t bother, why should Amazon? Note: Irwin’s site has the same image on it, but it looks fine at irwin.com because the image is too low-resolution to be readable, which is what that kind of dummy copy is designed for. Amazon’s mistake was in ordering up a hi-res version of the image. P.S.: Kudos to Consumer Reports for having initially spotted this boo-boo.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Amazon Learns Why Placeholder Headlines Are Bad Ideas

  1. FMJohnson Says:

    I visited the Irwin tool set in question on Amazon earlier today and the faulty image was still there.

    Ironically, while reading another blog this afternoon, I was served an Amazon banner ad for the same tool set, and the faulty image is still there.

    This is most likely the supplier’s fault, but as you point out, it’s on suppliers, distributors, and retailers alike to check and ensure the product information they’re using is correct.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.