Zappos Pricing Glitch Costs $1.6 Million, Forces Process Change

Written by Evan Schuman
May 27th, 2010

After a site last week suffered a pricing glitch that cost the company more than $1.6 million, the retailer put in place a new procedure to prevent any single employee from accidentally changing prices, according to Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh. Amazon bought Zappos last year for about $850 million in a mostly stock deal.

On his site’s blog, Hsieh wrote that the current software—which is all homegrown by Zappos—was so complex it was difficult for non-programmers to feed it information. “Unfortunately, the way to input new rules into the current version of our pricing engine requires near-programmer skills to manipulate, and a few symbols were missed in the coding of a new rule, which resulted in items that were sold exclusively on (Zappos partner site) to have a maximum price of $49.95,” he wrote. “We already had planned on improving our internal pricing engine so that it will have a much easier to use interface for our business owners.”

In E-mailed comments to StorefrontBacktalk, Hsieh said a planned fix was twofold: making the user interface more user-friendly and putting in place more human checks and balances.

What did he mean by the system being simpler? “We meant that a simple typo could have profoundly different effects on the outcome of the pricing engine. The intent of the new system is so that business owners won’t be able to accidentally make typos as easily,” Hsieh said.

As for those checks and balances? Hsieh said: “For example, instead of allowing one person to make pricing rule changes on his/her own, we are implementing an approval process so that it will take at least two people to make a pricing rule change.”

Asked if he thought such changes—or, for that matter, any changes—could prevent such glitches, the CEO said, “Probably not. But hopefully the chances of them occurring can be minimized.”

Zappos has been rather legendary in its focus on good customer service, which is beyond the loyalty ratings that attracted Amazon. Even though the prices of many items were wrong, the company chose to honor the prices anyway. Zappos even went out of its way to declare that the employee who inadvertently caused the fix wasn’t fired. “To those of you asking if anybody was fired, the answer is no, nobody was fired. This was a learning experience for all of us,” Hsieh posted on the site. You’ll note he didn’t say if that employee was perhaps disciplined. No? Look, this was a $1.6 million typo. It’s unlikely that a bonus and a promotion featured prominently in that conversation.

But honoring those prices was indeed a classy move. And it’s one not universally maintained by other E-Commerce sites, although the size of the losses probably had a lot to do with it, especially when looking at recent price glitches from Amazon and a rather large price hiccup from Best Buy.


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.