This is page 2 of:
Is It Time To Stop Mailing Fully Activated Gift Cards?
The nature of the service provides a legitimate reason for all four pieces of information. The name and E-mail address is needed to send the message; the snailmail address could appear to be used to trace the errant gift card, if it doesn’t arrive on time; and the phone number could simply be a way to contact the recipient to confirm receipt.
In addition, the name could be positioned as the only way to make sure that only the intended recipient uses the card. The fact that stores today do not check identities need not come up. But it’s also true that changing that policy might not be such a horrible idea, given how popular gift cards are with cyberthieves.
It’s still their favorite laundry technique when dealing with a stolen credit or debit card. Thieves steal the debit/credit card from victims and then rush to the nearest store to purchase as many gift cards as possible, as long as it’s below the limit set by the store to check identification. Those gift cards can be used long after the stolen cards are deactivated, typically to buy goods that are then sold on eBay or on street corners.
But with a recipient’s name, E-mail and snailmail addresses and phone number—along with the gift card number—the chain now has the long-desired full gift card transparency.
Such a service would require a few changes, such as having only bogus cards on display. The real gift cards would be stored under the counter at POS stations, and each card would need to have some sort of a fold over where the password for that card would be typed.
Once paid for, the cashier would give the gift card to the consumer, tear off the password and hand it to the consumer separately, suggesting that they put it in a pocket away from the gift card. Alternatively, the POS could be modified to allow the consumer to type in his/her own preferred PIN for the card.
The store could even offer to mail the card as part of its service. If that option is offered, then the password would be included in the E-mail sent before the card is received.
In the mobile world, gift cards raise yet more issues, especially in terms of security, as Target and Starbucks discovered last month.
One card payments firm, Dimpledough, is pushing a gift card delivery system, but only for cards that are ordered online.
Dimpledough CEO Shawn Barrieau said one retailer—identified only as having more than $15 billion in annual sales—has bought its virtual gift card service and plans to roll it out next year. Initially it will be a free service, but the retailer may move to a 50-cent-to-75-cent charge later.
Barrieau said he saw many attractions to offering this service for the physical cards, but said there were legal issues—changing from state to state—that might complicate the ROI. Unclaimed property rules, for example, might make some chains prefer ignorance to transparency. “For liability reasons, some retailers just won’t want to know” who the recipients are, he said.
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
When we initially developed our gift card application, we included a feature to place funds on a card but keep the card deactivated with the reason code “ID check required.” This ID check would only apply to the first time the gift card is used. While we thought it was a nice feature, a vast majority of the merchants using our application bypass the feature or worse, complain that they have to turn off the feature (it’s on by default). What we have found is that merchants are hesitant to do anything that may slow down the check-out lines. Having a clerk verify the ID of a customer the first time a gift card is used can slow down the lines so this feature is a very hard sale to the merchant.
A second issue is various state laws. Many states inadvertently give advantages to the merchant to keep the gift cards anonymous. Things like monthly fees, expiring funds and unused funds are handled differently for cards with names attached vs. anonymous. I’m not certain, but I believe that in California and Texas, if a name has been attached to a card and the cards has not been used for some period (2 or 4 years I think), the funds get turned over to the state so they can try to return the funds to the rightful owner (yeah, right!). So for merchants in these states, sticking the “$20 I Owe Anyone” in the mail is less of a liability than the inactive gift card attached to a person.
June 8th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I certainly wouldn’t want to provide my recipient’s info to get a gift card. If, however, I could get the email, and forward on, that would be useful for the times the card is mailed, vs given in person.