advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Why TJX Is Really So Skittish About E-Commerce

March 21st, 2012

Presumably, the E-Commerce team TJX assembled a year ago has already concluded that the U.K. site can’t simply be scaled up for use in the U.S. That means TJX is looking at a very Target-like possibility: the need to build a world-class E-tail site from the ground up.

Fortunately, there’s no Target-like deadline (remember, Target knew exactly when its agreement with Amazon would run out), so TJX’s unwillingness to set a date—or even a year—for the new site to go live makes sense. The number and size of schedule slips are directly proportional to how public the go-live date is.

But no matter how much time it has, how could TJX create that new E-Commerce site? It could build from scratch and take its Target-style lumps. That’s the option Meyrowitz is clearly trying to avoid.

It could hire the job out to Amazon and really set itself up to become the next Target.

It could buy another retailer’s E-tail site (or just buy another retailer) and rebrand the site for TJX. But that’s like buying a used car—a second-hand site will have lots of limitations and minor problems, the unavoidable result of having been patched and remodeled over years of use.

Or TJX could make use of its biggest E-Commerce advantage: the fact that its U.K. site is already working, even if it won’t scale up. TJX could build the new site as if it were a replacement for the U.K. site, but on steroids. Once it was finished, the chain could keep the existing TK Maxx site running and channel only some of the traffic to the new site. That wouldn’t be simple—both sites would have to talk to the same transaction backend—but it would mean some of the more obvious problems could be handled in a low-volume mode.

(The new site might even be built in the U.S. with transactions handled trans-Atlantically, though that could run afoul of tighter U.K. privacy requirements.)

With the existing site always available as a fallback, there wouldn’t have to be a sudden flip of the switch to go live. And when the new site is finally ready to completely replace the current site, it will also be ready to return to the U.S.—not quite stress-tested at full U.S. E-Commerce loads, but with many more glitches already worked out.

Would that work? That depends on lots of contingencies that nobody outside TJX knows. And along with technical issues, this is a company that’s been burned by E-Commerce before and is still smarting from a massive payment-card security breach. Meyrowitz, who first worked for TJ Maxx in 1983, rejoined the company as president on the same day the original E-tail site was shelved in 2005, and was promoted to CEO just days after the Gonzalez breach was announced in 2007. That, as much as Target’s failure, has to be on her mind.

But if TJX wants to get into fill-scale U.S. E-Commerce with as little risk as possible, building in the U.K. first might be the way to do it.


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.