advertisement
advertisement

Sephora Buys A Software Vendor. Wait, Can They Do That?

Written by Frank Hayes
August 9th, 2013

In the kind of move you’d expect from Walmart (NYSE:WMT) or Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) but not a retailer who couldn’t make the NRF’s Top 100 list, beauty products retailer Sephora has acquired a software startup. Last Wednesday (Aug. 7), the 1,300-store chain said it has acquired Scentsa, the company that developed Sephora’s touchscreen Fragrance Finder in 2008 and its Color IQ system last year—a pair of in-store kiosk systems that have become signature features for Sephora.

While it’s not surprising for a $2.6 billion retailer to develop in-store technology like that, no one seems to think of actually buying the startup as something most retailers can do. In part, that’s because most chains are deeply marinated in the buy-don’t-build concept, which makes perfect sense when it comes to ERP but no longer really holds for non-enterprise software. Besides, we’re not talking about acquiring IBM here: Sephora said the acquisition will add eight or ten people to its payroll.

That’s how small some startups are. What Sephora didn’t publicly disclose was how much it paid, but Sephora chief digital officer Julie Bornstein did have a short list of reasons for buying Scentsa, according to All Things D: To achieve long-run cost effectiveness, to develop new in-store products more rapidly and to keep the tech from winding up in the hands of competitors.

The first two are obvious and beside the point, because buying your software vendor—even a really small one—is the ultimate form of technology lock-in. Want to change platforms? You no longer have to just convince business-side users and managers. Now you have to explain to the CFO why this acquisition has suddenly become worthless.

So yes, you get to be first in line when you’re the only customer in line. And if you’re already a major customer, you won’t be paying to keep some investment fund fat and happy, so over time the purchase may break even.

But the real purpose is locking out the competition. When Sephora didn’t own Scentsa, the chain could implement the technology in its own way. But competitors could get access to the same underlying technology, and that could erode Sephora’s differentiation.

Yes, Sephora would still be Sephora, with all the high-touch customer experience and the brand value that the chain has built up. But at a basic level, there’s a real risk that it could all go away if someone else has access to the technology and enough money to try out-Sephora-ing Sephora.

Or at least there was that risk. Not anymore.

In fairness, none of this would likely be possible without a few other elements in the mix. For example, it probably helps that Sephora’s U.S. operations are based in San Francisco and Scentsa is just north of San Diego, both software startup hotbeds.

It’s not just that Sephora’s executives have rubbed elbows with startup types and understand the mindset. It’s also that they’ve seen how small a startup can actually be.

Remember, what used to be called a dog-and-pony show is for the purpose of making a vendor look much more impressive than it actually is. With a smart marketing chief and a budget that the company can just barely afford, a startup can appear big enough to convince much larger companies that it’s not the wing-and-a-prayer operation that’s one company-picnic-bus-accident away from nonexistence that it actually is.

And that, of course, is also a big reason most chains wouldn’t even consider buying a vendor. What, are you kidding? These guys are way outside the range of anything you could ever afford—right? Maybe not, after all.

Because once you get past the smoke and mirrors, the don’t-do-it-yourself commercial IT mindset and the fear of a very different way of thinking about IT, a retailer buying a startup comes down to something a lot like hiring a bunch of programmers for a skunkworks project. It’s just that calling it a “startup” gives that project a big head start—and a price tag that you won’t want to publicly disclose either.


advertisement

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.