advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

JCPenney CIO: We Forgot About In-Store (But For A Good Reason)

April 21st, 2011

The next rev of kiosks will also do a better job of bridging the gap between Web site and store. “Today, the kiosk is pointed at the online assortment, meaning that there’s no merchandise tied to that transaction,” Robben said. “We want to make that better. We’ve got some features that we need to add around promotions and gift carding. Once we do that, that’ll help even increase the business we’re seeing today on that kiosk. Could I take store merchandise and check out on that device? We’d have to think about how that’s going to work just in-store process-wise around removing ink tags and bagging.”

That can’t happen until JCPenney has an enterprise-wide inventory system—and that’s two or three years away from seamless integration, Robben said. Shifting the Web site from Microsoft’s .NET technology to Oracle’s ATG, which will set the stage for cross-channel inventory, is about a year from going live.

That will also make a lot more possible than just better use of the kiosks. “If we want it to be true multichannel, we’ve got to overlap those experiences, so you could take a mobile phone into our store, scan a barcode and, whether it’s private label or a national label, get the data that you need to make a shopping decision, and then carry that through the checkout,” Robben said.

“We’re working through how does that really work in-store from the mobile-payment aspect. Do you do self-checkout, or do they always have to go to the cash wrap? I think we could get there with some sort of roaming POS at a minimum, and then evolve into some sort of customer self-checkout.”

Even starting down that path will have JCPenney butting heads with the PCI Council, which has stopped approving mobile POS devices. Home Depot and Apple have gone ahead with mobile POS anyway, and Robben said JCPenney is likely to move ahead, too.

“We want to move as aggressively as we can,” he said. “If they’re not going to approve it, I think we’d have to dig into what is it they’re not going to approve. If it’s any wireless, no matter private wireless or encrypted, we might have a tougher case around it. But I don’t think we’d wait for them to decide that we could go do something. In the past we’ve been aggressive on various innovations, and we’ve been able to work through some of the bureaucracy that’s been a friction point for it. We’ll fight to make it work.”

What won’t necessarily work is the idea that mobile payments of any type will actually cut costs such as interchange fees, including whatever mobile carriers end up offering. “In the discussions we’ve had with carriers, they come in and want to sell you services—we can do the mobile wallet, all these value adds and features and functions,” Robben said. “Then once you get down to what the business model is for how this is going to work, it’s a discussion of a per-transaction fee or who’s going to own the customer data. Is it going to decrease the cost? I think it’s another avenue for another fee for somebody to charge me on my transactions.”


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

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!
advertisement

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...

StorefrontBacktalk
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.