JCPenney CEO: “We Can Have Loyalty Programs For Kids.” Doing It Is Smart. Saying It Isn’t

Written by Evan Schuman
November 14th, 2012

In the middle of an analyst briefing on November 9, where he was detailing a painful 27 percent drop in quarterly revenue, JCPenney CEO Ron Johnson made a bizarre comment that “we can have loyalty programs for kids.” Such utterances have been heresy in retail circles, where it sets off every creepy warning alarm that parents have. But Johnson’s point, which JCPenney tried its best to walk back, may have a lot of legitimacy behind it.

Johnson’s comment points to a hole in the legal minefield of marketing to children. Federal law strictly restricts and all but prohibits online marketing and tracking of children younger than 13 (once they become teenagers, the government—and parents around the world—have pretty much agreed that it’s time to surrender). But there are no such restrictions in-store. Ironically, the reasons Congress agreed to restrict online activity are, today, probably more relevant to in-store, thanks to mobile.

Congress agreed to have the government—through the Federal Trade Commission—protect children dabbling in E-Commerce because of an e-tailer’s ability to track every page, every visit, every product click, the IP address where the access came from and the duration of visits. That level of information, Congress argued, warrants every protection for children.

And yet today, that level of information—and much more—is being collected from mobile devices in-store. With children using mobile phones at an increasingly early age, the devices are with them constantly. Even the most invasive Web site doesn’t stay with a child when he or she goes out to play or visits a friend’s house, or if the child visits the mall.

This raises the question of why restrictions are strictly needed when a 10 year old visits, but no restrictions exist when that same child visits the physical version of Target, Macy’s or JCPenney. Such logic suggests that the protections should be the same, while leaving open to debate whether that means removing the restrictions from E-Commerce (there’s good reason to believe that those safeguards aren’t delivering a lot of meaningful protection anyway) or adding restrictions to in-store.

That brings us back to Ron Johnson’s perhaps-not-so-wacky comment. Johnson said JCP is about to open an area dedicated to kids in the new JCPenney stores, within the chain’s existing stores. He then started to describe those areas.

“We want to be the best place to buy every great American brand like Dockers and Hagger and Levi, and we will do that in our shop format. We are moving in an area where we will see the street changes for kids, where we have place for kids to play games on iPads, Max, Lego. We think a candy store is a great addition to a shopping experience. We just make sure the kids want to come, and we can have loyalty programs for kids,” the JCPenney CEO—and veteran of Apple and Target—said. “We’ll have Disney shops, coming in next spring, where we are the only place out of the Disney Store to carry true Disney-manufactured merchandize. It’s not a license shop.”

The “we can have loyalty programs for kids” comment is tucked away in the middle of his discussion, but it’s a fascinating concept. Today, a parent might make purchases and the store can track that, but it can’t differentiate between children and adults. Mobile opens the door to direct contact, highly targeted messaging and truly customized promotions/incentives. Marketers have been free to do this in every format possible, except online. It’s the fear of being perceived as overly invasive that has scared retailers from even considering such a move. At least JCPenney’s boss is considering it, which is encouraging.

JCPenney, though, would rather he hadn’t shared this particular thought. When asked to specifically elaborate on the CEO’s “we can have loyalty programs for kids” comment, JCPenney spokesperson Kate Coultas said: “We don’t have plans to create loyalty program for kids. Ron was talking about how we can create customer loyalty with an engaging in-store shopping experience with several of the initiatives we will be launching in The Street. However, we are looking at revamping our current customer loyalty program—jcp rewards—next year. It’s too early to share those details, but that is an entirely separate initiative.”

Asked to reconcile “we don’t have plans to create loyalty programs for kids” with the CEO’s “we can have loyalty programs for kids” comment, Coultas E-mailed back: “At this time, we don’t have plans for a loyalty program for kids. I do not have any further details I can share with you.” The difference between the two comments is the phrase “at this time.” Asked to clarify further, Coultas said: “I believe he was talking about creating loyalty for customers and creating programs/initiatives in-store for kids, not an actual loyalty program for children. Right now, we are concentrated on our jcp rewards program, and you have to be a credit-card holder to be a part of that program.”

What the CEO meant to say, or intended to say, is certainly an open issue. Given that he explicitly said, “we can have loyalty programs for kids,” though, it’s hard to argue that he meant “not an actual loyalty program for children.” This comment wasn’t in response to an analyst’s question. He initiated it all on his own.

Another bizarre note: This particular JCPenney analyst meeting was streamed live as a video. It was then kept on the site as a replay. What JCPenney didn’t say—although it would have been obvious to anyone watching the video and listening closely—is that the video was edited and the reference to loyalty for kids was removed. Whether that roughly 90-second segment was removed because of the kid comment or whether there was another reason is not certain, but it was removed—and in a very abrupt, non-finessed edit—nonetheless.

For what it’s worth, the SEC has no problem with companies posting edited videos, given that there is no requirement for them to post the video at all. The SEC does have a problem if the edit removes anything material or if the edited video would mislead investors.

Getting back to the policy itself, the very nature of juvenile marketing is a retail nightmare. 7-Eleven got caught flat-footed when it solicited mobile phone numbers for texting and other purposes. To make it less intrusive, the chain opted to not ask for a customer’s age. But that didn’t work out well, because it gave 7-Eleven no way to differentiate children from adults. Therefore, to avoid the huge risk of texting some 10 year old, it had to essentially not use the collected data at all.


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.