advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Blippy’s Purchase-Sharing Model: Innovative, Creative And Dead-Wrong. Plug Pulled.

May 25th, 2011

That, of course, is social’s great fear: that no one will come to the party, and that those who do come won’t hang around once it’s clear that the cool kids aren’t showing up. Blippy (which has since shifted to being a reviews site) is a particularly interesting case, though. It was arguably the most retail-oriented of social sites, because the data it posted was really nothing but a list of credit-card purchases. That’s fascinating stuff for retailers, a great potential source of insight into consumer behavior and a trove of CRM data.

Just one problem: Apparently, no one else cared.

In hindsight, it’s easy to see why. The Blippy inspiration went something like this: Shoppers, especially women, like to talk about what they’ve bought with friends. Blippy would turn that into a social network. What could go wrong?

But Blippy assumed that its users would use their credit cards to buy interesting things—concert tickets, apparel, movies—and when those purchases were automatically posted to the Blippy site, they would spark interaction and discussion by Blippy “friends.”

However, Blippy didn’t just share the interesting purchases—it shared everything. A new pair of shoes or tickets to a show might be a topic of conversation, but Blippy also reported every latte, fast-food lunch, dentist appointment, oil change, grocery-store trip and parking-garage payment.

And short of using a Blippy-designated card only for interesting purchases—which is a lot more attention than most users apparently want to pay—means that Blippy generated too much information. It was forced over-sharing, and for most people it was about as interesting as reading a credit-card bill. In the end, it may not have been controversial or frightening so much as it was boring.

If it’s boring, it’s not going to get anyone to pay attention to a user. And if “Look at me!” really is the driving force for many social users, Blippy got it all wrong.

As convenient as Blippy’s success would have been for retailers, harvesting customer buying data just isn’t that easy. Loyalty programs are expensive and IT-intensive. Big social-networking sites like Facebook are under continuous scrutiny because many users don’t want to be forced to over-share. There may be a social-networking concept out there that will be a perfect match for both what customers want and what retailers need, but no one has found it yet.

Still, there’s hope. Social-networking entrepreneurs will keep looking for that concept. But no one will know whether they’ve hit paydirt until they try it out.


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.