All Web Meltdowns Are Not Created Equal

Written by Evan Schuman
November 19th, 2008

When file transfer site YouSendIt—with more than 100,000 paid users bringing in some $10 million this year—crashed on Monday (Nov. 17), it illustrated the kind of crash that should make retailers very concerned.

The crash itself, resolved by the end of the day, was caused by a hardware problem with Cisco routers in the company’s San Jose datacenter, said Ranjith Kumaran, YouSendIt’s chief technology officer. YouSendIt has two other data centers—one in Herndon, Va., and a European data center in London—but they weren’t yet in a position to cover for the San Jose location.

But the bigger problem was twofold: When the file transfer systems died, that also brought down the Web site. And the system crashed in such a way that customers weren’t sure if their files had been transmitted or not.

When customers called the company’s headquarters, recorded messages instructed them to either ask for help through the Web site directly or to instant chat with support specialists, a service that is also only available via the Web site.

Customers didn’t know what to do and all of the emergency help options were based on the (apparently false) assumption that the Web site would survive a system crash.

Always Assume The Worst

This assumption brings us to the retail quandary. It’s inevitable that some retail sites will meltdown as the intensity of the holiday seasons gets ratcheted up starting next week. Indeed, there are reasons to believe it could be an especially site-crash-laden season this year.

That said, a site that crashes in the beginning of the transaction is in a much better position than one that melts down in the middle of checkout, leaving the consumer confused as to whether or not the purchase was consummated and the product shipped.

There’s no mystery that the most meltdown likely part of an E-Commerce site is going to be at checkout. But beyond hardening that part of the process, the YouSendIt incident reminds all E-Commerce directors to assume that the worst will happen and to have Web-independent methods for consumers to get accurate purchase status. And, yes, that means publicizing actual phone numbers at a point prior to payment so that the if the purchase glitches in mid-payment, the customer has a way to get a status.

E-Commerce is a technology-based business, but putting too much reliance in that technology can make a bad situation much worse.

Consumers do not expect perfect E-Commerce transactions throughout the busiest shopping days of the year. If a site glitches, some will be open to being forgiving. But if you frustrate those customers further with a lack of information so they don’t know if they need to purchase it somewhere else and risk paying double, that could give the term "meltdown" an even more frightening meaning.


Comments are closed.


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!

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...

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.