advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Facebook’s Shopper-to-Shopper Locator, Up One Moment and Gone The Next, Clears The Way For Retail Testing

Written by Evan Schuman
June 27th, 2012

The idea of retailers using mobile geolocation data to connect shoppers and products is almost irresistible, despite the challenges of being unable to fine-tune the location nearly enough and sometimes having databases that send customers away instead of helping them find what they want.

But helping shoppers find one another—as Walmart has proposed—is a much more privacy-problematic concept.

When automated, do such tools facilitate good interactions and help customers encourage each other’s purchases (such as saying whether an outfit looks sharp with those shoes or if that drillbit is the proper one for a particular fix-it job) or will it just freak shoppers out when it helps strangers approach them? In New Jersey, for example, a stranger approaching while smiling is legal justification for using deadly force.

Facebook this week gave a potentially unintended glimpse into its own geolocation connecting-consumers-with-consumers thinking when it made such a new service briefly visible during testing. But its efforts are still quite interesting.

The Facebook effort was dubbed Find Friends Nearby, and its brief appearance was seen by a reporter from Wired. “Instead of having to perform a Facebook search for your new friends’ names—and going through the hassle of asking ‘Is this John Smith you? What about this one?’—you could all just open up the Find Friends Nearby page and quickly add everyone. The app used your phone’s GPS coordinates to determine your location, and would turn off as soon as you left the Find Friends Nearby page. It didn’t do much else. Unlike beefier location-based apps, Find Friends Nearby didn’t try to help you discover new people with shared interests, common ties or mutual friends,” the Wired story said.

The piece also quotes a Facebook spokesperson saying: “This wasn’t a formal release. This was just something that a few engineers were testing. With all tests, some get released as full products, others don’t. Nothing more to say on this for now, but we’ll communicate to everyone when there is something to say.”

Given that the experiment seemed to be up for only a few hours, it’s unlikely that there was sufficient time for people to play with the app and get upset over much of anything. Oddly enough, the most likely answer is that Facebook is being entirely truthful, that it really was a test and that Facebook never intended for the app to be public. Therefore, not much can be concluded from this particular Facebook experiment, other than that it is one possibility the company is exploring.

For retailers, any such Facebook effort has a positive effect. If it launches and fails, retailers learn about public resistance without taking a hit. And if it succeeds, Facebook’s marketing might will make consumers comfortable with the idea, thereby making it a lot easier for chains to launch their own efforts with minimal resistance. Privacy is one of those areas where being a leader and trendsetter is dangerous and offers almost no rewards. Being 10th or 11th to market—with something that has this much potential to blow up—is a wonderful thing.


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.