advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Wal-Mart’s Gift Receipt POS Headache: Weak Associate Training Brings FTC Investigation

Written by Frank Hayes
May 25th, 2011

Wal-Mart’s gift-receipt troubles may be just beginning. A string of television news reports established that Wal-Mart was short-changing customers who returned items with gift receipts. On Tuesday (May 24), a U.S. Senator demanded a federal probe to see if the errors—all in Wal-Mart’s financial favor—were intentional. Wal-Mart’s explanation—which seems almost certainly the truth, given the evidence unearthed in the reports, a simple examination of a current gift receipt and interviews with various Wal-Mart employees—is that it all stemmed from weak training and employees simply hitting the wrong key.

The suggestion that Wal-Mart deliberately orchestrated employees doing this to boost profits simply makes little sense. Wal-Mart’s gift receipts are stuffed with data for identifying where, when and for how much each item was purchased, and Wal-Mart has systems for slicing and dicing all that data—data that’s crucial to keeping the chain dominant in a low-margin, cutthroat business. Why would Wal-Mart sabotage its own CRM and inventory-management efforts by intentionally mishandling returns?

The errors came about when a customer purchased an item for, say, $50, and then gave it as a gift to a friend with a gift receipt. A few days after the customer completes the purchase, the price of the item may drop. When the customer’s friend returns the item for store credit two weeks later, the associate looks up the item’s price and only credits the lower price. This could work, because of the nature of a gift. The friend wouldn’t have known the cost of the item so she/he would have no reason to complain.

If the employee followed proper procedure and hit the correct key, the system would display—and credit—the price paid at the time of purchase. That’s the essence of the promised retraining.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the retail giant was intentionally refunding less than the original purchase price. Boxer’s letter to the FTC recapped a report by a Sacramento TV station, which bought items at local Wal-Mart stores for a total of $51.82 and then returned them later with gift receipts and was refunded only $26.99. “Wal-Mart blamed staff for the errors, but similar results occurred at their stores in other areas of the country, raising the possibility that this practice is common,” Boxer wrote.

Actually, the news reports were based on stings by TV stations in only two cities, Sacramento and Philadelphia, where reporters specifically bought holiday items in those regions at full price and then waited until the items went on sale before returning them with gift receipts. And because Wal-Mart’s gift receipts include a barcode containing the price, it seems likely that the training of customer-service associates would be to blame.


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.