advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Peapod’s QR Train Station Grocery Trial Shows Mobile Bias

May 9th, 2012

Although the Peapod mobile app features some 12,000 SKUs, just 70 items are being used in the Chicago trial and even fewer—about 45 items—are being tested in Philadelphia.

Part of the challenge was logistics. For comfortable QR interactions, the images need to be at eye level and about 5 feet from where the shopper is standing. Much more than 5 feet and the phone won’t grab the code properly; much less than 5 feet and the shopper can’t see enough of the super-sized image. That had to be worked into a limited train station—or subway—space.

The small sample of products displayed were chosen based on their perceived convenience. Items included milk, bread, Coke, water, dog food, diapers, paper towels, Kleenex and ready-to-heat meals.

“We wanted to showcase convenience products, and then let (the customers) continue shopping in the mobile app” while on the train, Margolis said.

One debated point was the technology to be used. QR codes have become popular with retailers that want to do quick mobile trials. Indeed, Home Depot and Macy’s in October 2011 were exploring using QR codes that would display different things based on a shopper’s CRM profile. And JCPenney got QR clever with an effort in November to track where gifts ended up.

But as much as retailers love QR for its ease-of-use and platform agnosticism, consumers have been confused and generally unenthusiastic.

Peapod was practical about the QR code decision, after initially briefly considering NFC. “Our Web team decided (to use QR) because it was the easiest way to track” shopper activity, Margolis said, adding that the relatively short duration of the trials made it a no-brainer. It’s not as though QR codes would disappear by the end of the trials.

The trials have only been supporting two smartphone platforms (iPhone and Android), and Margolis said it’s been no contest about which platform was more popular. “Thus far, it’s been 90 percent iPhones and 10 percent Android,” she said.

The products are using the same UPC codes that Peapod uses on the app, so it’s easy to keep track of products purchased.

When observing consumers trying to use the QR codes, Margolis said the age differences were extreme. “All of the young people going through, they had no problem,” she said, adding that she witnessed one customer (“a guy probably in his 50s”) who was struggling.

He “was trying to do it and he was asking someone else for help. The problem seemed to be that he wasn’t holding his scan steady enough,” Margolis said.


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.