advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Best Buy Express Kiosk Acting Very Differently Than It Was Supposed To

Written by Evan Schuman
April 26th, 2012

Best Buy will “reexamine our processes around the Express kiosks” after an embarrassing column from a Time Magazine writer, who just happened to try one of the machines at a Hilton in Chicago.

The tested Best Buy Express kiosk—which is owned and handled by a vendor that also creates them for Macy’s and Apple—referred the customer to “a store representative” even though there obviously were none, offered an electronic receipt but then forced a written one and, most critically, offered significantly stricter rules for product return. All this despite a rule that the kiosks are supposed to have the same policies as Best Buy stores.

This situation also renews questions about how much—or how little—control retailers should have over kiosks that loudly proclaim their brands. (Beyond Best Buy and Macy’s, Wal-Mart is also toying with kiosks, although it seems to be with a different vendor.) The idea with Zoom Systems (owner of the Best Buy Express kiosks) and Best Buy was that Zoom’s people would handle everything and that Best Buy would give up its logo and get a large cut of revenue. But who was making sure that Best Buy’s policies and procedures were being managed properly? (In this case, the answer, apparently, is Time Magazine. Not quite the answer Best Buy should want.)

Here’s what happened. Time Editor-at-Large Harry McCracken visited that Best Buy Express kiosk at the hotel in the O’Hare Airport with a plan to buy an extended battery for his iPhone (a Mophie Juice Pack Air, to be precise). Right after he swiped his credit card, the problems began.

After the swipe, the screen displayed “If you need assistance, please see a Store Representative.” A curious thought to offer in the middle of the airport hotel. He then tried typing in his E-mail address but made a typo. The kiosk was not in a forgiving mood.

“When I touched the screen at the point where I needed to make a correction, I got a cursor, but when I typed the right character, it showed up at the end, not where the cursor appeared,” McCracken wrote. “And then, right as I was finishing with entering my E-mail address, the machine abruptly declared that it hadn’t heard from me in awhile—wrong!—and that it was going to give me a paper receipt instead, without so much as a ‘Do you need more time?'”

When he received the product, McCracken discovered that it was materially different than the product he had expected—apparently, Mophie has two different versions of the product using the same, or a very similar, name.

According to the screen display and the receipt McCracken was given (some of these details came from a phone conversation with McCracken and go beyond what his initial column said), the Best Buy Express machine had a very different return policy than Best Buy stores.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 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.