HP’s Personal Shopper Debut Illustrates Different Approaches

Written by Evan Schuman
May 30th, 2007

When Hewlett-Packard this week unveiled its prototype Retail Store Assistant?a kiosk that offers customized individualized promotions transmitted directly to a customer’s smartphone?it took a business pragmatic position in the personal shopper battle.

There’s little debate that customized shopping?taking the CRM customer-specific data one major step beyond the minimally effective coupons at the end of checkout?is almost certainly going to be a key in-store technology over the next few years, especially with grocers. But the form that this customized shopping will take is a key debate.

At its most basic level, there are two opposing approaches: manufacturing a handheld mobile unit that is given to shoppers; and leveraging the technology (usually a smartphone) that the customer already owns, carries and is presumably comfortable with.

The manufacturing and issuing approach?with Motorola one of the dominant players–can deliver the most powerful, flexible and consistent experience, but it requires the retailer to purchase large numbers of the units, at perhaps $700 each.

The “leverage what the customer already has” approach?now supported by HP–means no hardware cost and no hardware to track, but it severely limits functionality because programmers must write to the lowest-common denominator of multiple operating systems, hardware platforms, carriers and applications.

Mohamed Dekhil, manager of retail applications in the Digital Imaging and Printing Lab at HP Labs, said weighing the two is easy when business realities are considered. The approach that will survive is the one that most quickly gets a dominant marketshare of major retailers. With that goal, the approach that promises much lower costs to each retailer is the way to go, he said.

“I’m not saying which (approach) is better. I’m saying which one is more feasible,” Dekhil said, adding that HP’s prototype approach uses a store-based kiosk. “You may lose some enhanced features” because you’re using the consumer’s phone, he said, but that functionality could be delivered from the kiosk.

The HP approach calls for consumers to first have to register online or in-store. That registration requires the store’s loyalty card, which ties in the customer’s CRM history. It also requires the customer to take out his/her Bluetooth-enabled smartphone and pair it with the kiosk, so that data can be exchanged. The phone then also can serve as an identification/authentication device.

Ultimately, HP wants the customer’s smartphone to be able to communicate directly with a store’s self-checkout system, but they don’t have that capability yet, even in a prototype. This system could also leverage future item-level RFID systems, Dekhil said.

The HP kiosks?which Dekhil said cost about $8,000 to $10,000 in small-volume production and could “go down to a few thousand dollars” in large-volume retail deployments?can perform several functions beyond customer interactions, including inventory, POS, supply-chain and employee training programs.

For the consumer, the kiosk-to-smartphone system can deliver realtime promotions based on that customer’s history as well as inventory triggers at the store. But it can also display store maps, print recipes, remind the customer of items the customer entered into a Web site and play private voicemail messages (for example, a family member asking for a particular purchase).

The kiosk can print out color coupons and recipes or can beam them to the customer’s phone. But HP likes to use the printouts because it conveniently sidesteps the technical issues with transmitting data to the consumer’s device.

Without an HP application installed on the phone, how will the customer know where the data is sent? Will it be in a consistent place and have a consistent look? If a carrier or a PDA hardware manufacturer or an operating system company issues an upgrade that interferes with the kiosk interaction, is it likely anyone in the store would be able to troubleshoot the problem?

Dekhil said one way to try and standardize the experience is to have customers install a small proprietary applet, but that gets into the same OS/platform issues. “We said, ‘Is there something already in the phone that we can use?'” and BlueTooth was the initial answer, Dekhil said.


One Comment | Read HP’s Personal Shopper Debut Illustrates Different Approaches

  1. bdb Says:

    This is an interesting debate that everyone admits is yet to be determined. However, the barrier to entry for the consumer to use the HP kiosk-smartphone service is way too high. Bluetooth pairing is a known headache for end users and probably a deal breaker alone. Beyond that, most people simply don’t install 3rd party applications on their phones, I have seen some data on the number and it was very low (I don’t remember specifically, but could find it if needed). So, even though utilizing the mobile phones of consumers sounds like the easiest solution, currently it is not; while the mobile phone is poised to become the multi-use device this service (and others) would require, there are simply too many issues to overcome in the short-term.

    Ironically, Motorola also supplies many of the phones consumers carry today and could leverage that fact and yet,their approach is to offer the dedicated store units. A given store could purchase 10-15 of these units for the cost of one HP kiosk with a much more consistent user experience and assurance of all features/ functions.

    It is no surprise this comes from HP Labs as engineers, in my experience, are probably the worst demographic to determine market needs.


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.