advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

ID’ing Customers Should Be Easy—If Only Mobile Carriers Can Get It Together, Says JCPenney CIO

April 21st, 2011

That way, when a customer walks in the door, her phone will switch its connection to the in-store mobile tower. She’ll be able to use her phone in all the ways that M-Commerce suggests she should be using her phone—and from the point of view of mobile carriers, burning minutes and megabytes on her data plan.

With a guaranteed signal inside the store, mobile carriers can get serious about mobile payments. If there’s no in-store phone signal, the carriers have no advantage over anyone else who wants to jam a near field communication (NFC) chip into a phone. But with a guaranteed signal, carriers can authenticate customers, confirm transactions and even put purchases on phone bills.

And with the right technology, mobile carriers could identify the loyalty customers for a particular store’s chain as soon as the customer walks in and the phone connects to the in-store mobile signal. The mobile carriers would just need a list of those customers’ phone numbers to compare to the phone numbers that are connecting to the in-store signal.

Or maybe some retailers would prefer to send a text message to every phone that comes in the door, loyalty-program member or random customer. That would be even easier: Mobile carriers would just pass each phone number that comes into range along to the store, which could figure out who’s a loyalty customer (and would get a targeted offer) and who just gets a generic offer.

That way, nearly every customer who walks into the store would be immediately identified by phone number. And if customers also use their phones for payment, this could provide a huge trove of new CRM data.

That’s something retailers would have a reason to pay for.

Does all this represent a massive invasion of privacy? Potentially. Retailers would have to work out security issues, including where that list of loyalty customers’ phone numbers will live. Trusting a retailer’s customer data to the phone company isn’t going to make anyone comfortable. (One workaround: As mobile users arrive in the store, pass all the phone numbers directly from the mini-cell tower to the store’s systems, which could then do identification and message sending.)

There’s also a risk that sending an unrequested text message will annoy customers instead of entice them. Loyalty customers might be willing to opt in; for non-loyalty customers, retailers will have to think carefully about what type of discount or coupon is likely to make the message an incentive instead of an irritant.

None of this is outside the technical capabilities of mobile carriers. The big question is whether they’ll be able to work out how to bundle in-store cell signals and mobile payments.


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.