advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Kmart Geolocation Trial: How Close Is Close Enough?

Written by Evan Schuman
March 3rd, 2011

On Monday (Feb. 28), AT&T formally joined the geolocation marketing game, bringing Kmart along for its location-aware ride. As these efforts move from the whiteboard to the sidewalk, a critical question is: To be effective, how close should consumers be to a store before a promo pops up on their screen? Whatever you answer, it’s likely to conflict with the distance today’s technology can deliver. Conflict in the way that an Amtrak Acela conflicts with a deer on the tracks.

So how closely can a consumer’s location be determined? In the AT&T effort, the telco is not using GPS and is limiting itself to cell tower triangulation. Depending on the area, that can range from 200 meters to as much as a three-mile radius. The nature of the alerts are such that they really shouldn’t be used when someone is driving or in any other form of transportation (although it would be fun to try in the subway, watching as hundreds of ads appear and disappear).

It’s designed to be used when someone is walking. If that person is walking in an urban area (walking in the suburbs is discouraged), an alert that a business has a sale and it’s only three miles away is of somewhat limited value. To be effective, the alert should be restricted to businesses that are truly a quick, brief walk away. “Interested in 70 percent off new bedroom furniture? We’re just three blocks away from you right now.”

The AT&T effort is jumping onto an existing series of mobile geolocation trials called ShopAlerts, which launched 18 months ago. ShopAlerts encourages retailers to pitch coupons that are good for at least a week, with the idea being that the customer will come back a few days from now when she/he is back in the neighborhood.

Placecast, the company behind the ShopAlerts, has found that consumers are very quick to open these alerts, but they often don’t take action right away, said Placecast spokesperson Rachael Himsel.

Is it possible that shorter duration alerts, using GPS to also offer a much tighter geography, would help boost the action numbers? Some Placecast trials have indeed been using GPS, but the distances have still been on the longer side.

One reason is the chicken-and-egg reality of all such early stage trials: With a relatively small number of participants, it’s critical that the consumer see a decent number of alerts. Too many would be bad, but too few also gives a bad impression. To make it work now, the distance settings have to be rather generous to get the numbers right.

This raises an interesting scenario. Could this approach be hurt by strong success? In other words, if a huge number of retailers started using the service, would consumers start getting pinged so often that they either unsubscribe or—even worse—start ignoring the alerts?

Himsel said the vendor would have limits to prevent that from happening. But if those limits are in place, how much growth would their business plan permit? Ahhh, the joys of being tech pioneers.


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.