advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Time To Invest In Scanner Vendors: 74 Percent Of Retailers Say They Want To Scan Mobile Barcodes, Only 2 Percent Can Today

Written by Evan Schuman
November 11th, 2010

In IHL’s latest report on retail mobile hardware issues, a survey of 66 major retailers in September found that 59 percent want to be able to scan mobile barcodes within a year and another 15 percent want to do so within two years. That’s 74 percent of retailers who want to scan mobile barcodes. The problem? Barely two percent of them have scanners today that can do the job.

“There’s going to be a massive replacement of optical scanners,” said IHL President Greg Buzek.

The mobile barcode scanning problem is actually even worse than those numbers suggest, because even chains that have the ability to read today’s barcodes—using 1D image scanners—might not be able to deal with more sophisticated mobile barcodes a year down the road. The percentage of retailers that have 2D scanners is even less.

All Wal-Mart stores, for example, have the ability to read mobile barcodes. But only about half of them are 2D capable, according to one Wal-Mart IT exec.

One issue stems from the somewhat non-intuitive suggestion that the more sophisticated 2D scanners would likely be more effective at reading barcodes off older phones that have weaker resolutions. In most instances, though, a 1D optical scanner should do fine with almost all phones.

The more problematic issue arises when mobile phones start using 2D barcodes, which many phones have already started to use. “Today, the preponderance—by far—of barcodes that are reproduced on cellphones are 2D,” said Rusty Hastings, a product manager with scanner vendor Datalogic.

A Target IT exec who is working on the mobile barcode issue said that initial tests on reading mobile barcodes has exposed lots of minor logistical issues. For example, the fluorescent lights used in some Targets (and many other chains) have a tendency to obscure the phone’s barcodes. That’s why holding the phone above the scanner—so that the phone and the hand holding the phone block out much of that fluorescent light—can be helpful.

The IHL report also brought up a mobile checkout speed issue. “How fast can you go through coupons on a mobile screen?” Buzek asked.

The point is a very good one. Most consumers do not bring a single coupon to checkout. If they’re using coupons, they’ll often use several at once.

An experienced cashier can whip through nine paper coupons in a few seconds. But scanned mobile coupons—as opposed to ones that are selected at home and automatically saved to the phone or onto a CRM file that the POS screen can access—today have to be handled one at a time, with a couple of screen changes to move from one coupon to the next. That has the very strong potential for dramatically slowing down the line.


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.