An Ocean Apart: Why A U.K. Retailer Handled A Site Glitch So Differently

Written by Evan Schuman
June 27th, 2008

When an order processing snafu shut down the delivery operations of one of the U.K.’s largest grocery chains, the $38 billion retailer acted starkly different than the typical U.S. retailer.

The London-based 823-store Sainsbury’s grocery chain immediately issued almost a half-million dollars’ worth of £10 (roughly equivalent to $20) vouchers to some 30,000 disgruntled customers and personally–through staff volunteers and no software automation—called every one of those 30,000 to apologize and tell them about the vouchers. All of this for a 2-day glitch that the chain said didn’t even inconvenience customers much, as the glitch was limited to isolated shipments from its Web site.

"When the extent of the problem was realized, we asked for volunteers to help the online team contact our customers personally," Sainsbury’s spokeswoman Cheryl Kuczynski said. "There was a great response from colleagues and the phoning was done personally to our customers. The voucher can only be spent online and customers were very understanding about the technical glitch. They were pleased that we phoned them individually to alert them to the situation and most people put in their usual order when the site was re-opened."

On a typical day, Sainsbury’s customers use to order their eggs, milk and other products, which are later delivered to them. But on June 17, a glitch in the site’s processing system stopped orders from coming in, forcing Sainsbury’s to halt its order system until it could solve the mishap.

And for 48 hours, instead of the easy-to-use online grocery ordering site they’re used to, customers were met with this message: "We have temporarily frozen our online home delivery website having identified a technical issue. We are contacting customers directly whose deliveries have been affected. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes you."

Sainsbury’s spokeswoman Gillian Taylor said that although this failure clearly left customers grocery-less, she said most customers who do online shopping also shop in-store. "We believe that many customers whose orders have not been fulfilled have indeed been going into our stores and therefore the impact on the business is minimal," she said.

Contrast the way Sainsbury’s dealt with its outage and how dealt with a series of outages earlier this month. Amazon said that it knew what caused its outages but wouldn’t say what they were and no apologies, credits, vouchers or phone calls were offered.

Amazon’s reaction to its outages seems to be sadly typical of what most major E-Commerce players have done in the U.S. It’s hardly worth asking the question of which strategy is likely to deliver a better long-term benefit for the retailer.

Are American consumers so cynical that we have come to expect such, well, lack of courtesy? How many retail execs would have even thought about taking the kind of personal and immediate action that Sainsbury’s took?

"To have a company care that you had a bad experience online, that’s mind blowing," said Ben Rushlo, a senior manager with Keynote Systems, a firm that tracks Web site performance. Rushlo then added, as though to explain American business attitudes: "Our culture is not a customer service culture."

Indeed. But is that by design or by carelessness? Are retailers weighing the pros and cons and choosing to treat customers this way during an outage? Or, as is perhaps more likely, is no one outside of IT planning on outages and making any contingency plans?

Retailers have detailed plans for disasters ranging from hurricanes, blizzards, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. And yet the much more common site crash hits everyone outside of IT as though it were the most unanticipated event since T-Rex and Triceratops met Alvin the Asteroid.

Even if the American E-Commerce consumer is so beaten up as to not expect these kinds of courtesies, is that a reason to not offer them? Indeed, wouldn’t that make the first—and the few—who do truly put the customer up top have that much more of an impact? As E-Commerce sites start to merge and shut down, having a few extra bags of customer loyalty is probably not going to be such a bad thing.


3 Comments | Read An Ocean Apart: Why A U.K. Retailer Handled A Site Glitch So Differently

  1. bbar Says:

    I think it is more a matter of saving face than a higher standard of service in the UK.

    Sainsburys was faced with headlines touting that 1000’s were left “without their groceries” in the ever present UK press. Amazon’s glitches were not as publicized and one could argue that Sainsburys’ online customers are more loyal and therefore deserve the extra attention.

  2. Giacomo Says:

    I can’t comment on the motivation for Sainsbury, whether saving face or otherwise.

    However, since Jeff Bezos is pursuing a predatory, take it or leave it, approach with book publishers in terms of his print on demand and kindle services: “do what we say or we’ll turn off your buy button,” this doesn’t surprise me.

  3. kiwi Says:

    I would say that Amazon glitches have a far more reaching impact on the global shopping community that store would have.

    Whether cynical UK press angle or extra attention beacuse of a problem, Sainsbury have done really well. Customer service is paramount online or offline. To many online retailers forget this and forget it is the little extra attention to the customer that makes them different from the other 1000 online stores touting the same stuff.


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.