McDonald’s Mobile Trial Raises Question: Who Owns The Data?

Written by Evan Schuman
April 9th, 2008

A group of 109 McDonald’s restaurants in the Salt Lake City region are doing a mobile commerce trial, with participating consumers getting free iced coffee. Although those 109 stores are barely one coffee bean’s worth, given the $22.8 billion chain’s 31,377-store network, the trial is interesting both for its capabilities and for how much data-control McDonald’s was willing to give up.

The trial started April 7 and is scheduled to run until April 27, with McDonald’s in parts of Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska and Arizona. But the area is really considered to be Salt Lake City and its surrounding communities, said Paul Barrera, the McDonald’s marketing manager responsible for the Rocky Mountain region.

McDonald’s is working with a mobile coupon and discount firm called Cellfire. The San Jose-based company offers the mobile service free to consumers.

McDonald’s is launching iced coffee as part of some new menu options and "part of our objective was to create additional awareness," Barrera said, especially among the younger consumers that McDonald’s assumes will be receptive to a mobile coupon campaign. "The key thing is for us to say, ‘Let’s see how many young adults will know about this product.’ The goal really was to get them to try the product," he said.

Cellfire told McDonald’s it has 4,000 subscribers in the Salt Lake City region and that would be the extent of the campaign’s reach, Barrera said.

Such campaigns can work both ways, of course, with the McDonald’s publicity giving consumers a reason to subscribe to the cellphone service.

The way the coupon redemption is supposed to work is that a subscriber sees the latest offers—including this one from McDonald’s—and signs up. A text message gives them the coupon. When they go into the restaurant to redeem it, they show the phone’s screen (displaying a barcode and a number) to the cashier, who selects a preprogrammed POS button for the free coffee.

The McDonald’s employee does not write anything down. This makes it easier for employees and places the data-retention burden on Cellfire.

One of the customizable aspects of this kind of program is expiration date and limits. McDonald’s chose, for example, to allow consumers to use the coupon as many as three times. "That means we can tell [our customers, in this case McDonald’s] how many [people] redeemed it once or twice or even three times," said Dwight Moore, Cellfire’s vice president of Corporate Marketing.

Moore said that part of the benefit of using a firm like Cellfire is that it knows a lot about the consumer customers, who sign up revealing their phone number, age, gender and the ZIP code they live in. For privacy concern purposes, Moore said, Cellfire keeps that data in aggregate, to maintain a little bit of anonymity. "We know people’s phone numbers but we don’t know their names," he said.

Getting someone’s name when you already know their cellphone number is usually not too tricky, but we won’t go there. Generally, there isn’t much reason to know consumers’ names as long as you know their habits. Retailers want to reach people who tend to buy certain things and attend certain events. Their names are not merely private: They’re usually quite irrelevant and unnecessary.

But the McDonald’s Salt Lake City mobile trial is interesting because of a different data issue: Control. And it’s an issue that retailers will need to figure out as they experiment more with mobile commerce.

On the one hand, there are some major advantages to McDonald’s in letting the data sit with a company like Cellfire. There are the training savings, because McDonald’s employees have to push just one button. And the company instantly knows how many iced coffees are being given away, which is much of what it really wants to know.

And if McDonald’s wants to know more—such as a demographic analysis of who specifically redeemed the mobile coupons (90 percent female, for example, or 87 percent between the ages of 17 and 23 or 56 percent from ZIP codes 84101 and 84158)— the company can simply ask and be told.

Then there’s the downside of control. If a customer, McDonald’s for example, wanted to take some additional action—such as "Next month, send another coupon just to the 856 customers who used the iced coffee coupon two or three times and offer them a free salad and let’s see what happens"—that customer presumably would be locked into using the same service provider.

There’s an even more frightening retail scenario. Companies like Cellfire certainly start with a modest amount of customer-volunteered data (such as phone number, age, gender and ZIP code), but their customer database grows quickly as they do various advertiser trials. Because they own all of that data, they can provide more sophisticated services to clients as time goes by. That’s a good thing.

But what happens when a rival gets interested? Let’s consider this McDonald’s iced coffee trial. One of the companies that McDonald’s is aiming at with this iced coffee testing is clearly Starbucks. What happens if, a week after the trial ends, Starbucks approaches Cellfire and says that now it wants to do a mobile trial?

What if Starbucks asks Cellfire to send an offer of free cappuccinos to any Cellfire customer who has previously responded to any coffee promotions? This starts to get interesting. Cellfire can’t betray the confidence of any customer, but all information is owned by the company and it clearly has a right to use the knowledge of its customers’ habits for its advertisers.

If Cellfire did that, in a sense, McDonald’s would have subsidized marketing research for its arch enemy. (I won’t lie to you. That pun was intended.)

It’s simply one of the downsides of allowing a partner to own marketing—and ultimately CRM—data from your trials. That data, which you paid for, could easily aid your direct rival.


2 Comments | Read McDonald’s Mobile Trial Raises Question: Who Owns The Data?

  1. Great Internet Branding Says:

    This is a great article that addresses some key concerns with mobile marketing…I do think however McDonalds is wise to continue down this path in order to build some mobile and internet marketing for the company..

  2. Aiding the Competitive Enemy Says:

    Why on earth would McDonald’s allow their customer data to be owned by a vendor???

    That vendor then, at their discretion, can sell, abuse, re-use for illicit purposes that MacDonald’s customer. Don’t think for a second that the customer won’t belive it wasn’t McDonalds that violated them- not the vendor. Bad move McDonalds.


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.