Evan Schuman's StorefrontBacktalk

In the terms and conditions on the Walmart site for this trial, the chain points out that not only will it use the data for a price-comparison pitch back to the customer, but it will also share the results with Walmart suppliers “for purposes of calculating the comparison.” That raises some questions. Doesn’t Walmart know its own prices? Why would it have to check with Nike or Nabisco to determine its sneaker or cereal pricing?

More to the privacy point, what’s to prevent those suppliers from reaching out to those customers directly with their own E-mail pitches? There’s nothing P&G or J&J love more than some closure, being able to identify the consumers purchasing their products through major chains. But why would Walmart want this? It seems an odd move, especially given that it was included in a section titled “privacy.”

The fine print also rattles off the usual restrictions. (What would a Walmart price-comparison offer be without lots of restrictions?) It starts with being only offered in specific markets—Albuquerque, Atlanta and Chicago are the first—”and against select competitors.” Won’t that sound to consumers as though Walmart is saying, “We’ll only compare prices with those we know are more expensive than we are”?

It reasonably limits transaction matches to those purchased within the prior seven days (“I found this receipt from 1969. It’s a bit faded, but the prices sure look good”), and it also requires that “there must be a Walmart location nearby the competitor location where you shopped. Only receipts with at least ten (10) items can be compared.” That 10-item requirement is a nice touch, as it reinforces the message that—theoretically—Walmart would save money on full shopping trips, not necessarily when a shopper grabs a single item on a special sale.

Then there’s the restriction that will rule out many potential comparisons, a group that gets even bigger as chains try and differentiate products more to thwart showcasing. “To ensure an accurate comparison, we only compare items that are exactly alike. Therefore, we do not compare private label or random weight items such as meats and non-bagged produce. We only compare exact items that we carry at Walmart.” It also adds a reasonable coupon-eliminator: “We do not include any redeemed coupons in the comparison due to the difficulty in matching up coupons with the items shown on the receipt.”

The best of this new trial: It shows that Walmart is willing to think creatively, to not accept the routine assumptions about online, in-store or anything else. Using cash for online? Heresy. Have an in-store price-comparison program where the customers don’t have to go in-store (well, at least not into your store)? Ridiculous.

And, of course, from a marketing standpoint, it sends the message to shoppers that Walmart must be convinced it really does offer lower prices or else why try such a trial? Some unorthodox merged-channel thinking on top of price confidence and the willingness to play a little Missouri, “OK, we will show you first”? There’s a reason Walmart is such a frightening competitor.