advertisement
advertisement

Risque Business: Sears Thought It Had Removed A Naughty Image, But It Didn’t Go Far Enough

Written by Frank Hayes
February 16th, 2012

Sears got a double-barreled lesson this week on the risks of letting third-party sellers put products in its online marketplace at Sears.com. On Monday (Feb. 13), customers discovered an exceedingly revealing product image (to be explicit, it was bare breasts) for a $24.99 lingerie item. Word—well, snickers—passed around the Internet until a Forbes blogger contacted Sears for comment, after which the offending image was removed. Sears thought the problem was resolved. It wasn’t.

It turns out there was at least one more copy of the problem picture—this time on Sears’ ShopYourWay.com Web site.

According to Sears spokesman Tom Aiello on Tuesday (Feb. 14), “This was a marketplace item from a third-party seller and not Sears. The terms on our marketplace prohibit images from displaying nudity and see-through clothing. We are in the process of updating all of our sites.”

In other words, Sears went into search-and-destroy mode to find all the copies that might have been uploaded by outside sellers. The big chain wasn’t just burned by a third-party seller who broke the rules. Sears also forgot about the complexity of its own site.

Why didn’t the possibility of more copies of the offending image occur to anyone at Sears until we asked about it? (We found the Shop Your Way version after a two-minute Google search.) The most likely explanation is that, like most chains, Sears has plenty of tools to efficiently update product information (although those tools can also efficiently create an E-Commerce mess). That can lead to an unstated assumption that everyone can easily put up, update and take down product pages.

Unfortunately, that’s nothing like reality, especially on marketplace areas of large-chain sites. Most E-tailers who offer selling space for third-party sellers have perfectly reasonable interfaces for those companies to post their products. But the sellers are often tiny companies eking out a living with minimal technology. They may not even remember all the places they posted a product in an E-tailer’s marketplace sites—they’ll just put it everywhere they can.

So if Sears goes to that mom-and-pop seller demanding that all versions of an offending image (this one pretty clearly violated Sears’ standards, which “prohibit images from displaying nudity and see-through clothing”), the little seller isn’t likely to be any help. It’s not that they don’t want to cooperate. They have no idea where they posted those products.

That same mom-and-pop-level retailer is also the most likely to use whatever image they can find as a product shot. In this case, although the lingerie-maker’s own Web site has a product shot with the naughty bits Photoshopped out, it appears the third-party seller just scanned in the product insert, which was a lot more graphic.

Exactly how graphic? The same images that were such a problem for Sears are also still visible in Amazon’s marketplace—for example, here and here (Warning: Not Safe For Sears). Whether or not you find them offensive, here’s something that’s certainly shocking: It’s a product that’s (at least sometimes) more expensive from Amazon than from Sears.


advertisement

3 Comments | Read Risque Business: Sears Thought It Had Removed A Naughty Image, But It Didn’t Go Far Enough

  1. Alicia Saunders Says:

    Oh my gosh! Time to panic and feel guilty because somebody saw a bare breast. What is this society coming to ?

  2. Evan Schuman Says:

    Editor’s Note: The intended point of the piece was not that the particular body part was offensive. It was the challenge for a retailer to control its images and to remove it completely once it decided to do so. Whether or not Sears should have wanted to remove that image is a separate issue. That said, one could certainly argue that the image was necessary to sell the product, so if even a handful of site visitors are offended, it seems to be a potential problem. Much of this is context. It could be jarring for that image to be seen in the middle of a retail site.

  3. S Burrows Says:

    I think this article is a great reminder of the world we now live in. Retailers sometimes forget what it involves. In the ‘old days’ of printed catalogs, we often knew how many and where copies existed. Now, you know that the world could see your error … even after you’ve removed it. Preparation, planning, proofing, etc. are even more critical!

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 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.