Best Buy’s Online CRM Move: Focus On Why Conversion Rate Is Low

Written by Evan Schuman
June 14th, 2013

Best Buy (NYSE:BBY) is trying to push its substantial in-store CRM program to help its online conversions. Although a noble effort, it’s a difficult challenge, trying to get shoppers to not merely change their behavior but also how they envision each channel.

At more than 40 million accounts, Best Buy has one of the largest CRM programs in retail. But many of those accounts, of course, are dormant and date from long before the chain’s current challenges. They come from a time when the site was seen as little more than a digital directory of the physical stores’ SKUs, a place to do some research before heading out to the store.

These days, it’s just as likely for shoppers to use the Best Buy site as a way to explore products before buying them at another physical store or a rival’s Web site. In effect, the Best Buy site is becoming a showroom for other e-tailers.

Best Buy’s idea, according to a story in The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, is “to entice shoppers to write product reviews or post purchases on Facebook in exchange for points that can later be redeemed for perks and discounts. Currently, operates separately from the general website.” The piece also tried to spell out the site’s conversion headache: “Among major retailers, Best Buy has one of the worst online conversion rates. In fiscal year 2012, digital sales totaled $2.3 billion even though attracted 1 billion visits that year. By contrast, Best Buy’s stores generated $35 billion from the 600 million visits to its physical stores.”

Actually, those numbers don’t shed much light on conversion, at least not without knowing the average size of the typical Best Buy online purchase. This suggests an average of $2.30/site visit, which presumably includes an awful lot of shoppers buying nothing, compared with a comparable physical store average of $58.33. Those physical stats also includes a lot of null purchases, but most likely at a much lower rate of abandonment than online (given how much more effort is involved in visiting a physical store).

The problem with the loyalty point approach is that it doesn’t address the core issue. Why are those shoppers not converting? It might be price, although product selection is a more likely cause. It might also be perceived lack of customer service, in that some shoppers think that returning to—or a local hardware store—might be much easier and hassle-free compared with returning to Best Buy. Whether that’s a valid or fair shopper perception today is a different question, but there’s plenty of indicator that the perception does indeed exist.

The CRM changes don’t directly address any of the reasons shoppers are not converting. Even worse, the effort could undermine some good existing programs. Consider the first two suggestions.


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.