A Ray Of Hope For Mobile Barcode Scan ROI With Grocer’s 100-Plus Location Expansion

Written by Evan Schuman
October 4th, 2012

Mobile barcode experiments have been all the rage these last few months. Burger King tried QR for payment. Target used QR for unlimited in-store inventory on hot holiday toys. Home Depot and Macy’s both toyed with CRM-adapting QR codes to show different people different information. And there are lots of bizarrely frivolous QR trials, too.

But will having shoppers scan barcodes—as a way to extend in-store to anyplace customers linger—prove to be a passing fad, or will it be long-term? For those hoping these shopper scans offer serious business returns, a glimmer of hope has come out of a grocery trial.

Back in May, we told you about a train-station grocery trial by online grocer Peapod, which was itself a direct steal from a Tesco QR code subway trial in South Korea. The Peapod effort started at 16 stations in the Chicago and Philadelphia metro areas.

Here’s the unexpected part: On Monday (Oct. 1), Peapod expanded the trial to more than 100 locations. The expansion—adding Boston, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., commuter rail stations to the test—is impressive in its scope.

Although Peapod has not released any stats from its initial trial, it’s not hard to conclude that for someone to have approved a move to more than 100 locations, those codes had to be resonating with a lot of mobile shoppers. We wouldn’t want to base a business plan on this expansion, but it’s one of the first signs that these codes actually work in scale and can deliver sales. Say what you will, but that’s more than any of the mobile wallets have yet done.

Trial expansion does not, in and of itself, necessarily indicate even limited success; it really depends on who is doing—and, more importantly, deciding—the expansion. Google Wallet initially expanded, but it was Google doing the expansion and paying for retailers to participate. PayPal’s wallet did the same, with the same vendor-fueled funding. (ISIS couldn’t even deliver its much-promised summer trial, so let’s not even go there.)

But Peapod is a retailer, a grocer of the virtual kind. Its decision to expand was based—one would hope—on having solid ROI in the field. Peapod could have expanded to another 10 or 20 locations for further tests. It’s fair to take notice of Peapod’s decision to expand to more than 100 locations and conclude that somebody must have seen some fairly impressive figures. (Either that or the grocer has gone dot-com crazy. Uh-oh.)


One Comment | Read A Ray Of Hope For Mobile Barcode Scan ROI With Grocer’s 100-Plus Location Expansion

  1. Rajan Says:

    I hope there is value in the trial for both peapod and it’s customers. What may add value is that a customer shops from a station and a delivery (of couple of bags) is made while waiting for a train.


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.