Bing’s CashBack Program Died Because Of Consumer Cleverness

Written by Evan Schuman
June 10th, 2010

On Friday (June 4), Microsoft’s Bing search engine announced it was killing one of its more popular programs, the CashBack effort. Microsoft was rather vague about the reason it’s backing off (“After a couple of years of trying, we did not see the broad adoption that we had hoped for,” blogged Bing Senior VP Yusuf Mehdi), but there has been a compelling suggestion that the program was simply being gamed by clever consumers.

The idea of bribing consumers to take desired actions is not always effective. Noted blogger Ben Metcalfe makes a compelling argument—which all E-Commerce execs should listen to—that the very same people who will be motivated by money will also invest time and effort into manipulating your system.

Metcalfe’s case is that the Bing program was simply too easy to rip off. “For example, every time I’ve found something to buy on eBay, I’ve noted the auction details, cleared my cookie, searched for eBay on Bing and clicked through. Performing that slightly but not terribly inconvenient task has netted me up to a 30 percent refund on my eBay purchases. Ditto for B&H, Dell and others,” he wrote. “These purchases were going to be made anyway—thus no lead was generated. None of these people has switched over to Bing search engine, known as the halo effect. None of these people has switched to Bing Shopping for non-CashBack purchases, and Microsoft and the retailers have been paying handsomely for our hacks.”

Some might look at this issue and conclude that Microsoft’s error was in integrating insufficient security safeguards. (You’ll find that arguments using the premise “Redmond was acting overly trusting and user-friendly” rarely hold up.) No, the problem is that Microsoft got too complicated for its own good. If the company wanted to fund (or get retailers to fund) having lower prices on Bing than elsewhere, that’s perfect, as well as being perfectly simple.

But it was Microsoft’s effort to come up with something more sophisticated that was the program’s undoing.

Last week, we discussed some mobile efforts at Best Buy and Macy’s, and a similar issue cropped up. Should a retailer funnel discounts through a customer’s mobile device—which opens the chain to mobile-level fraud–or route those transactions through the store’s existing POS network? The mobile option is more cool and compelling, but the internal POS route is safer because it simply gives customers far fewer fraud opportunities.

Bing’s CashBack program failed not because of security holes per se. It failed because it got complicated and offered lots of fraud opportunities. And no bargain-hunting consumer can resist a good challenge coupled with an opportunity.


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.