Is Corporate Hoarding the CRM Goodies?

Written by Evan Schuman
September 28th, 2004

Store managers are starting to complain that their data-collection efforts are baring fruit, says Evan Schuman, but they’re not being allowed to eat any of it.

It’s a common complaint within retail circles. Store management is given the most hard-line responsibility?your store beats its numbers or you’re in serious trouble?along with much of the work of executing every corporate IT decision, but yet those store managers have virtually no say in what those systems will be or how they will be used.

It’s the explanation for the spotty?sometimes great, sometimes awful?success rates of many self-checkout programs. The weak performers almost always just dropped equipment on store managers with little explanation and just another mandate. Surprise: The programs were executed in the most perfunctory fashion and left to wither.

Now comes word of store managers rebelling against CRM systems, complaining that the answers that come back from headquarters are too late, too few and typically are not answering the questions the store managers want answered.

Is this an indictment of the top-down IT approach? Not at all. Retailers must have accurate global views of where sales are going, and those decisions can’t be made by majority rule.

But this does raise the question of whether store managers should be given the freedom to set up their own parallel CRM systems, as some isolated retailers have been trying. The problem is not so much with gathering two sets of data. Ostensibly, the store managers and their staffs would handle all of the additional labor involved and would have the best feel for when customers were being asked too much, too often.

As this column has said about RFID privacy issues, the problem is not so much the technology used to gather the data and how it’s gathered, but what will be done with it.

Here again, conflicting agendas and psychological issues obscure rationality. The store manager makes a convincing argument that the customer is the store’s local customer, that the store’s reps made the sale, that the face the customer sees is the local store personnel, and that commissions and job security make the store manager the one who will ultimately be held responsibility for an unhappy customer. The corporate IT person makes a much shorter and pithier argument: We pay the salary of the store manager.

And, for that matter, the store workers, the building, the stock, the advertising and just about everything else. Store managers should be consulted on customer contact, and they should be free to gather their own data, but the idea of having thousands of store managers given the ability to independently contact their customers above and beyond what corporate does is asking for trouble.

That said, the idea of corporate deciding to give regional store managers full autonomy over any contacts made to their customers is attractive. On Kerry campaign commercials, the candidate is heard at the end saying, “This is John Kerry, and I approved this message.” That might not be a bad idea for e-mail and snailmail campaigns. “I’m Jane Doe, store manager of the Main Street Widget Emporium, and I approved this message.” It gives them a person to ask for. (You’ll note I didn’t include phone bank campaigns. I think store managers are too smart to associate themselves with those forms of legal torture.)

What some store managers have been exploring are modern-day interactive kiosks, such as the ones Nike is using to let customers design their own sneakers in exchange for personal data ? and a lot of cash.

As the latest in a series of do-it-yourself retailing kits, this one has some serious promise. Here again, the ultimate value of the kiosks will be dictated by how intelligent and self-restrained the systems will be.

If the units become TVs on wheels, displaying continuous product commercials, they will deserve their fate. But if they are able to compare customer-selected products with non-promotional illustrative animations, they have promise. If they are able to answer detailed questions about the products that go well beyond what’s printed on the label, it’s getting better. If the boxes are given a Web connection so that the displays can communicate live with product experts and allow for real-time communications (think of the customer service kiosks at Disneyworld), this is getting very interesting.

But there’s a limit. The day a kiosk greets me at the store’s front entrance and tells me that it is fluent in 6 million forms of communication, I’m gone.


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.