J.C. Penney Says It Experienced “Some Order Issues” on Monday

Written by Evan Schuman
December 2nd, 2009

J.C. Penney sent an E-mail to some customers on Tuesday (Dec. 1) that said “Due to overwhelming site volume, experienced some order issues last night,” an apparent reference to Monday (Nov. 30) night. It then offered to extend a free shipping offer—especially squeamish readers may not want to read the next quote—”to show that we are still here for you.”

A J.C. Penney representative on Wednesday (Dec. 2) night blamed the glitch on high traffic. “Due to the overwhelming customer response to our Cyber Monday deals, the checkout portion of the site slowed down Monday night into early Tuesday morning and, in some cases, customers were unable to complete their orders,” said J.C. Penney spokesperson Tim Lyons. “To make up for any inconvenience this caused our customers, we extended the Cyber Monday pricing and ‘free shipping on $25 or more’ offer through Tuesday night.”

Lyons added that the chain’s people tried to reach out to those customers and prospects to encourage them to come back and complete their halted orders.

“We were actively in touch with customers through our call centers, online customer service and through our Facebook and Twitter channels throughout yesterday (Dec. 1), ensuring that we minimized the impact and that customers were able to complete their orders with the Cyber Monday pricing and free shipping offer,” Lyons said. “We have corrected the problem and should not experience any further issues. Thankfully, it was a short-lived issue.”

Of all the areas of an E-Commerce site, checkout is the most complex and, therefore, the most prone to glitches. But it’s also the most dangerous, because customers are not always sure if they actually made their purchases. The risk to consumers intensifies when the problem is a slowdown—as opposed to a crash—which is what J.C. Penney said happened.

Do customers assume the item is coming? Do they try ordering again? Do they hit a rival’s Web site and buy the products there? And what happens if two of the same products eventually arrive? Would J.C. Penney have accepted the return and paid for return shipment?

Also, it’s hard to not appreciate J.C. Penney’s “due to overwhelming site volume” wording. It’s like those recorded hold messages that attribute the problem to “the extreme popularity of our product.” I’ll offer all of my purchases to the first company that says on its hold recording: “We apologize for the lengthy hold, but we’re too cheap to hire enough people for our call center. And if you think this hold time is long, try choosing the ‘if you want to terminate your purchase’ option. We have one rep covering all of North America, she doesn’t hear that well anymore and she takes 4-hour coffee breaks.”

Instead of attributing the glitch to too many customers, maybe J.C. Penney could have said that it didn’t plan for sufficient bandwidth or didn’t discover various issues that volume can reveal, such as–as one astute reader suggested–coding issues, caching issues with popular content,3rd party site partners like tax computation providers, or credit card authorization providers, etc.? (A guy can dream, can’t he?)

Maybe we should extrapolate some good advice out of this. A tip to all CIOs and E-Commerce directors: The next time there’s a huge site outage or slowdown during the holidays and you’re called in front of the CEO to explain how it happened, say, “Our site is simply far too popular, sir. This is the fault of engineering and marketing. I hate to point fingers, but they made our products too good and told too many people about them. But I don’t know if disciplinary action is needed. A mere reprimand will likely be sufficient. Is there anything else?” Yeah, see how well that plays.

Technical issues have become a common theme this week, with retailers “apologizing” for site problems with free shipping extensions. But is this option a true apology, or is it crass marketing? Why not extend it for 2 or 3 days as opposed to a handful of hours? The last-minute extension smacks of trying to pressure consumers into impulse purchases. Some might be so cynical as to question whether a glitch even happened (not us, though, but someone else might.) also sent out a similar offer, E-mailing customers and saying that “we’re aware it was a challenge to shop this weekend” and then briefly extending its sale and free shipping.


One Comment | Read J.C. Penney Says It Experienced “Some Order Issues” on Monday

  1. Dawn Says:

    There is a rule for criticizing that says if you don’t like how or what one is doing, you must recommend a better alternative. It’s not always about bandwidth that was insufficient, the complexities of running a website are much more diverse than that. Volume sometimes brings to light – coding issues, caching issues with popular content,3rd party site partners like tax computation providers, or credit card authorization providers, etc. I’m sure the community could weigh in with many more. It’s just not as simple as bandwidth.


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.