advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Are Check-In Apps Losing Their Shine?

Written by Todd L. Michaud
October 6th, 2010

Columnist Todd Michaud has spent the last 17 years trying to fight IT issues, with the last seven years focused on franchisee IT issues. He is currently responsible for IT at Focus Brands (Cinnabon, Carvel, Schlotzsky’s and Moe’s Southwestern Grill).

Jamie used to think that using the check-in apps on her phone was cool. She could let her friends know where she was, and she was often crowned the “mayor” of her favorite pub down the street from her house (when Justin didn’t take it away from her). There were some rumblings about “free appetizers for the mayor,” but nothing materialized. The coolness factor of checking in and becoming mayor started to fade a bit. Jamie began to wonder whether it was worth the hassle anymore.

We are witnessing a race that will determine the success or failure of many Quick Service Restaurants’ rewards programs. On one side, we have the socially enabled “check-in” applications like Foursquare and GoWalla, where friends share their location and compete to earn badges. On the other side, we have brands trying to offer perks through these applications. Today, these perks are inconsistent in terms of both which locations offer them and the value they provide to customers. If the industry as a whole doesn’t start to provide consistent value to the consumer through these new tools, I think the social aspect (the game) may pass by as nothing more than a fad, leaving brands right where they started.

One of the biggest challenges with loyalty and rewards programs in the Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) space is determining if your customer is actually in the restaurant. Unlike supermarkets or more casual dining restaurants, where a loyalty card or even a barcoded key fob might be used (and socially accepted), consumers haven’t shown a lot of interest in toting around various QSR brands in wallets or on key chains. As a result, it is very difficult for many of these brands to engage with customers via traditional rewards programs.

That has changed with the growing popularity of check-in applications. These mobile applications have the ability to alert retailers that customers are in the restaurant that very second. In a stroke of blind luck, these brands had their single biggest challenge solved as a side effect of a game played on a cell phone.

But there is a lot of noise about these applications losing steam. There seems to be somewhat of an “over-sharing backlash” from the constant updates these tools provide. And people are already talking about how these tools are no longer as fun as they used to be.

There are also concerns about personal safety when it comes to stalkers or even people breaking into houses because they know the homeowner is enjoying being the “mayor” at the pub down the street.


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.