Amazon Learns The Downside To Empowering Employees

Written by Evan Schuman
April 14th, 2009

This seems to be the week for large retailers to appreciate—and fear—the power of the employee and to know when to limit it. Domino’s Pizza learned that lesson when two employees decided to do a little Web video and social networking on their own and Amazon learned it when a slice of its public database was rewritten courtesy of a one-keystroke error from one employee in France.

Amazon’s problem was aggravated by the fact that the database change—whether intentionally or unintentionally—adversely impacted the placement of many books in Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine and Erotica. From a PR standpoint, it specifically was seen as playing down books dealing with homosexual issues.

After a few days of silence, Amazon issued a statement, which began “This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection.” (Editor’s Note: A colleague, whose brain is in the gutter almost as frequently as mine, thought Amazon made a very poor choice of words. “On any issue dealing with a gay lifestyle uproar, you really want to avoid saying ham-fisted. It’s not going to be a wise move.”)

But the more important issue is how it happened. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quoted one Amazon source confirming the lone French employee reports. “Amazon managers found that an employee who happened to work in France had filled out a field incorrectly and more than 50,000 items got flipped over to be flagged as ‘adult,’ the source said. Technically, the flag for adult content was flipped from ‘false’ to ‘true,'” the story reported. “It’s no big policy change, just some field that’s been around forever filled out incorrectly.”

Amazon’s statement confirmed that the glitch impacted Amazon worldwide. ” It affected not just sales rank but also had the effect of removing the books from Amazon’s main product search,” wrote Drew Herdener, the Amazon communications director. “Many books have now been fixed and we’re in the process of fixing the remainder as quickly as possible, and we intend to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.”

That’s a good start, but how was it that one employee was able to make that change and have it populate globally? No supervisor had to approve? No software to check for a radical shift of titles? Not even a pair of employees checking each other’s work?

These glitches happen and it’s not any kind of indictment on Amazon’s operations. Indeed, it’s the generally brilliant sophistication of Amazon’s procedures, technologies and policies that raises the issue here. Is it a matter of “If it can happen to Amazon, it can happen to anyone”?

Or is it more an issue of tech-loving Amazon getting too confident, trusting its systems and employees too much and placing insufficient safeguards? In the Domino’s case, at least the employees were acting a bit renegade and maliciously. It’s hard to prevent employees from doing dumb things. (With management, it’s usually mandated.)

But in the Amazon case, the employee—based on all preliminary reports—did nothing more than a typo, but clicking a box the wrong way. That wasn’t foreseeable? It’s looking as though Amazon had gotten overconfident, putting inadequate safeguards in place. Let’s see what those new measures look like, though, before we choose to—please forgive me—throw the book at them.


3 Comments | Read Amazon Learns The Downside To Empowering Employees

  1. Lee Says:

    The more things change, the more they remain the same. I am reminded of the adage: “for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost” (For those that have not heard that expression, it dates back to the day when communications depended on horse and rider, and horses depended on shoes,which needed nails)

  2. Rick Boretsky Says:

    I think in both cases, although not the same, that these displays of lunacy or error are getting blown out of proportion. In fact, I think because of today’s technology and internet-crazed world, stories like this can get disclosed quickly and virally, so that companies like Dominos can deal with it immediately. Only because of youtube could this have been so widely viewed and dealt with. Dominos did what they had to do – fire the boneheads!! Dominos did make a youtube apology, but personally I don’t even think that was really necessary. In my mind this unique case is not a reflection of the company, but simply a couple of yahoos making a stupid video and probably not even smart enough to realize it was going to cost them their jobs. Dominos fired them, done! Move on.

  3. James Loar Says:

    The idea that there would be a ‘supervisor approval’ or ‘second employee to check the other’s work’ is in complete violation of the LEAN business philosophies. Companies are downsizing — there are no extra employees anymore to check each other’s work. Those days are long gone. As for incorporating new software rules, this is more likely — but how many of these scenarios are still waiting to be defined and written (by the fewer emplyees)? For now we only can expect, “Are you sure you want to change 50,000 records?” > Yes / No


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.