Google’s Latest Social Search Falls Far Short Of What Retailers Need

Written by Evan Schuman
September 2nd, 2010

Among the most frustrating data-analytics facts in retail today is that the goldmine of customer data locked in social networks is virtually untouchable because of the way the data is structured.

Think about it: millions of customers and prospects post their innermost product thoughts on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and the blogs of themselves and their friends. This info is free and often visible to all. But how do you take that data and match it to specific customers/prospects so that the data can be acted on? That’s the untouchable part.

Google this week (August 26) tried to move in on this space with a service called Google Realtime Search. “We’ve added a conversations view, making it easy to follow a discussion on the real-time Web. Often a single tweet sparks a larger conversation of re-tweets and other replies, but to put it together you have to click through a bunch of links and figure it out yourself,” said Google’s announcement on its blog. “With the new full conversation feature, you can browse the entire conversation in a single glance. We organize the tweets from oldest to newest and indent so you quickly see how the conversation developed.”

The service itself is nice—although on the test searches we did, it wasn’t any more useful than running plus any search engine—but it does little to truly connect the dots between the content and who is posting it. Some observers have been tempted to draw the conclusion that the absence of quantifiable social media data means that there’s little retail potential out there, which is silly.

Still, the opportunity to truly try and make this data useful is still there. A retail chain would presumably start with its installed base of customers and have the engine gather as many comments from those individuals as possible, dragging the results into the customers’ CRM profiles. The same would be attempted with a list of prospects.

Some companies have already done this on Twitter, although it’s typically not automated. Employees are assigned to search for the retail or brand names and then to join the conversations and fix problems. But the very nature of that effort is going to be reactive, and personnel bandwidth makes it of very limited value. (To be clear, the value is quite high. But it can only impact an extremely small percentage of a major chain’s customers and prospects. That’s what we mean by limited value.)

But a truly automated approach that focuses on customers and prospects would be proactive—and it could potentially have an impact on far more customers, prospects and sales.


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.