At Best Buy, IT Issues Examined For Ethics

Written by Evan Schuman
December 17th, 2009

National retailing during a recession is nothing if not pushing limits. And with today’s new IT-fueled marketing options such as mobile, social networks, video sites, SMS and geolocation, those limits look almost limitless. At Best Buy, though, the $50 billion 1,023-store chain wants to throw up a few roadblocks for the hungry manager who might be prone to being a tad bit overzealous. In the rush for marketshare and profits, is it realistic to get already scared managers to worry about—dare we say the word—ethics?

Kathleen Edmond, the chain’s Chief Ethics Officer and an attorney, thinks it’s not only realistic, it’s indeed about survival and profit-retention. Put bluntly, her job is to get conversations started, to ask uncomfortable questions and to make sure that the revenue and profits of Best Buy a year down the road aren’t jeopardized because some LOB managers didn’t think a strategy through.

“This is crucial if you’re out there for the long term and you want to stay in business,” Edmond said.

When asked about the most recent ethics issues she’s been dealing with, her first response was credit card applications. “When we’re talking about extending credit, do we offer it to students? How hard should we push?” the attorney asked. “Do we have a duty to inform the parents? What’s the balance of that?”

Edmond’s ethics issues aren’t strictly limited to the marketing and technology moves of Best Buy corporate. As a chain that sells lots of cell phones, she focuses on how consumers should use them. “What about sexting? Do we have an obligation to talk with parents? What I want people to do is think about these things. Do we want to offer a parental control function?” she asked. “Are we the moral police? God no. I don’t believe you can give 160,000 people a set of rules.”

She spoke of some recent interactions with competitive intelligence teams and observed how it’s often people in those meetings who start to feel uncomfortable with the approach. “More often than not, it’s other people in the room” that she hears from. “They’ll say, ‘That doesn’t feel like who we are.'” (With some chains, though, it might be closer to “Ick! That feels exactly like who we are. I need to leave this meeting and take a shower.”)

A common theme among Edmond’s examples is that even a moment that seemingly serves the interests of both the buyer and the seller may be unethical and ill advised. “If you’re going to use someone’s lack of sophistication in a way to benefit you and they’ve not objected, that doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do,” she said. “There were throngs of people signing up for mortgages that were not good for them.” Was it ethical for banks to approve loans to consumers if the banks knew it was unwise in those cases?

On the IT side, Edmond spoke of geolocation rules for mobile marketing. “I would ask, ‘What is the business purpose for this?’ As long as the customer is fully informed and the customer says ‘I want to give you access to my movements for this purpose,’ you may access it for the sole purpose [specified]. Do you have the discipline to only do what you have been given permission to do?”

She cited an example of an overseas site where Best Buy does some of its manufacturing. At that site, there are mountains of product from a key Best Buy competitor in addition to valuable competitive intelligence for the taking and for the looking. And, yes, Best Buy’s products are also in plain sight of employees of the rival chain.

Is it ethical to take advantage of that oversight? “Should we ask them to sequester our stuff?”

Edmond didn’t offer an answer. Her job is not to suggest answers. It isn’t even to merely ask the right questions. She’s trying to train managers’ minds so they can come up with—and answer—the right ethical questions on their own.

If someone was seeking the least likely places to find the Socratic method being practiced in 2009, most people would have considered Best Buy’s executive offices an excellent wager.


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.