Best Buy Officials Concede Dual Site Problem Caused By “Human Error,” “Employee Confusion”

Written by Evan Schuman
March 6th, 2007

As the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office continues the probe into possible fraud accusations against the $31 billion retail chain, retailer’s executives concede errors.

As it tries to navigate the minefield that today’s multi-channel retail strategies have become, Best Buy officials are conceding “human error” and employee “confusion” caused customers to be shown a site showing higher brick-and-mortar prices while the customer was incorrectly being told that the displayed site was showing online prices, according to interviews with Best Buy officials.

The confusion stems from two visually-identical sites that Best Buy employees can show customers. The sites have only a handful of minor functionality differences, with the key difference being that the prices are sometimes different, said Chap Achen, director of order management for Best Buy.

This issue has come to haunt the $31 billion retail chain—which owns about 941 stores in the U.S. and Canada—after the Connecticut Attorney General’s office launched an investigation into the chain, trying to establish if employees had deliberately conned customers with the almost-duplicate site.

Best Buy officials, while admitting “human error” among its workers, denies any evil intent and says the false statements apparently made by store employees were a result of confusion and inadequate employee training.

“This is more an issue of process than of deception,” Achen said, defining it more specifically as employees “not realizing” the sites’ differences. “The differences between the two can be improved upon. Our customers and, in this case, an employee was confused about the differences between” the two sites, he said. “The kiosk is reflecting store pricing. We’re absolutely evaluating the option of making it more clear. We feel, if anything, this (Connecticut) investigation has exposed that we can take more concrete steps” to make the site differences more obvious.

The intra-store version is showcased in store kiosks using Internet Explorer and was intended to show customers information about products available in the store, along with their official prices. The problem stems from Best Buy’s price-matching policy, which promises to match the price of other retailers and it explicitly includes Best

The problematic scenario happened when customers saw a low Web price and went into a Best Buy physical location to trigger the pricematch and get that low price. Employees would agree to match the price and would then say they were calling up the Web site to verify the claim. Instead of calling the Web site, though, employees would access a site the intra-store kiosk application, which looked identical (other than its pricing) and then used that to “prove” the online pricing didn’t exist.

Achen said employees have access to both sites and shouldn’t have shown the wrong site and said he believed those instances were accidents, where employees truly believed they were showing the Web site.

Why do the two sites look identical? Achen and Dawn Bryant, who is Best Buy’s corporate public relations manager, said the mirror designs were solely the result of cheapness, not trickiness. The two sites—which Achen said each contained “hundreds of thousands of pages” including “at least 250,000 active product pages”—used the same design because at the time of its launch, there was not seen a need for investing in a different site design.

“Our online kiosk is a virtual copy of the Web site,” Achen said, with just a handful of differences. Some of the differences be cited include: the checkout on the kiosk not requiring an E-mail address (it is required for the Web site’s checkout); pop-up payment forms time out “a little faster” on the kiosk version to make it more difficult for a situation “where another customer could read your credit card number”; and the kiosk version is limited to only view sites owned by Best Buy.

The Best Buy browsing restriction is to prevent customers from using these very publicly-displayed to show pornographic sites or what Best Buy would consider even more obscene: visiting price-comparison sites or the Web sites of competitors. “We’ve got parameters about when we’re linking out to third parties,” Achen said. “We’re only going to link to stuff that we absolutely trust.”

The original purpose of the kiosk was to show inventory and product details and stemmed from a time when Web access was not nearly as common as today.

Achen said Best Buy’s Web site today uses extensive customization, meaning that one customer visiting the site and looking at Widget 1234 might be presented with a lower “overall purchase price” than another customer looking at the identical product at the same time, based on that customer’s buying history and other factors. “That’s the power of personalization,” Achen said. “We’re trying to drive certain categories of business.”

The kiosk was intended to be able to offer various in-store-only incentives—such as financing. This adds up, Achen said, to a very complex multi-channel pricing situation where different Web prices will appear. Sites can also frequently change pricing based on inventory and supplier changes that feed into the system automatically. “On any given day, there are going to be variances in the price. A customer may be complaining when (a brick-and-mortar associate is) showing Web site pricing (instead of in-store pricing) because the Web pricing may be higher at that moment.”

Achen said that employee training was “one component” of the problem. “People lose the context. (Store associates) may be going over to the kiosk once a day” and may not remember which site is which, he said.

“There was obviously some employee error” on “the salesfloor,” Bryant said, “given the complexity where dotcom and brick and mortar come together.”

How do those explanations play with the Connecticut officials who are investigating? State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the probe goes on.

“Best Buy’s explanations—apparently multiplying but still murky—seem to raise more questions than they answer,” Blumenthal said, in a written statement Monday night. “We will seek full and complete answers that address the potential consumer rights issues raised by the apparent practice of advertising one price and charging another. All of the facts need to be known before we can conclude our investigation and reach conclusions as to whether violations of law have occurred. We will pursue our investigation vigorously.”

Meanwhile, Best Buy customers have been contacting media to say that their experiences mirror the earlier ones reported, strongly suggesting the site confusion is, at best, widespread. At worst, some customers say, it could be deliberate and misleading if the employees knew what sites they were showing.

“I recently encountered the Best Buy intrastore Web site pricing discrepency. I often research products online, then make my purchase in the store. But I was disheartened when I arrived to find the price higher in the store,” said John Thayer, an applications architect with Quality Bicycle Products in Bloomington, Minn. “I asked a sales associate ‘Can I get the Web price?’ The sales associate said ‘sure’ and we walked to a terminal to look up the price. What they pulled up on their terminal was a Web page showing the price that matched the store price, not what I recalled was the Web price.”

Thayer said that “what troubles me is the misdirection that occurs when looking up the Web price in their stores. How can a customer respond to this price discrepancy without becoming argumentative? I’m sure many people respond with ‘Well, I must have made a mistake’ and just pay the higher price. In order to get the Web price, I ultimately had to return home to make a printout of my version of the Web price.”

Another reader wrote in to say that he also saw what he described as a “bait-and-switch routine at Best Buy with the (intra-store) and Internet versions of their Web site.”

“Last year, I purchased a Sony video camera. As I live an hour from the nearest store, I had researched the price that week,” wrote the Fort Wayne, Indiana, reader. “On the Friday before I purchased it, the price was someplace between $20 to $50 cheaper on the Web site than at the store on Saturday. I asked the salesman about this and he took me to their computer and explained that the sale price had expired and showed me the price on the Web site. I did not know it was their (in-store site) rather than the public Internet site so I purchased it at the store price. When I got home that evening, I checked the Internet price and it was still on sale. I called back to the store and talked to the manager and he refunded me the price difference with a credit on my credit card account. He explained that some of the sales associates didn’t know that they were using the intra-store site rather than the public Internet site. As I got my money back, I didn’t take it any further.”

A Michigan reader wrote in with a similar saga. “Around Christmas, I also found a good deal on the Best Buy’s site: a Canon digital camera for around $269. When I went to the store, the price was $299. When I told an employee about the Internet price, he looked it up on the supposed Best Buy Web site where the $299 price was the only price visible. So I went out and fired up my wireless laptop and went inside the store and showed an employee the lower price, whereupon they gave me the lower price through a complicated exception process.”


One Comment | Read Best Buy Officials Concede Dual Site Problem Caused By “Human Error,” “Employee Confusion”

  1. Jeff Says:

    There is no confusion and this is deliberate.

    The General manager {names and details omitted} admitted to me on the telephone 3.7.2007 that he has specific knowledge of the intranet site and he explicitly told me twice that no employees is trained or aware of the intranet site in his store. This is an admission of fraud. {The General Manager} is fully aware that his employees are acting in bad faith. The operations manager of the store also admitted to having knowledge of the intranet site and also indicated that no employee is trained to know the difference between the two sites. The store manager told me that she herself has used the intranet site to verify all of her own purchases for the years that she has worked there because she does not have the internet at home. Even the store manager – promoted through the ranks was never enlightened by her management that she was not looking at the real site. The original employee who lied to me but did it unknowingly had to suffer through my accusations with no clue what was even going on.

    C-level executives designed this scheme to capture what was perceived to be left of the retail market – the poor who can not afford the internet at home and the impusle buyer not doing his homework. The internet site was designed to keep the dow-traded public company competitive in the evolving virtual marketplace. However if Worst Buy was to extend its online pricing to all of its brick-and-mortar locations too much overhead would be lost. It has been taken even further and is used by employees to deceive in store customers into believing they misread online – most of the time without the employee even knowing that they are lying – (makes them more believable).

    When worst-buy created this idea they didn’t realize the future exponential growth of the internet, technology and awareness. Best Buy also most likely calculated the return on ivesment would outweigh any class action lawsuit that would result.

    Let’s hope that Sarbanes Oxley plays out here and executives are held personally responsible for the fraud they created and knew was occuring every day.

    I told both (key managers) that they are now aware of what is occuring and therefore are liable for their employees actions. (One of the employees) indicated she will make this an issue at their next employee meeting. I sincerely hope she does and every employee is made aware of what is truly occuring.

    If you have purchased from Best Buy before – do the same at every retail location. Demand to speak to both the GM of the store and the Operations Manager. Educate the employees at Best Buy what the intranet is and what Best Buy is doing – most of the employees are not that tech savy (ironically) and don’t even know they are misleading people every day. Tell them – make best buy accountable for their practices!

    Much of this is my opinion of course, but the facts I present are fully accurate.


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.