Groupon’s Japan Disaster A Critical Social Lesson For Retail

Written by Evan Schuman
January 26th, 2011

Social site and Mobile efforts are wonderful things, but the enthusiasm surrounding them—which may indeed be temporary, until the newness factor fades—has the most potential to create surprise disasters. Disasters from, ironically, excessive success. Retailers are used to making controlled entries into well-studied markets, which allows them to have proper capacity planning mechanisms. But Social and Mobile are threatening to undermine those efforts. Just ask Groupon CEO Andrew Mason.

Groupon just launched a New Year’s holiday food program in Japan. The launch went so poorly—and by that we mean that it sold so really well—that Mason had to lose face with a positively painful YouTube video for customers. He opened with an admission that “we featured a deal in Tokyo recently that we really messed up,” because its supplier couldn’t handle the volume of orders.

The candor continued: “We ended up delivering food late to many of our customers and in terrible condition to others” and “So what I really want to say is how terribly sorry I am and everyone at Groupon is about what happened. We know how important the New Year’s holiday is in Japan. We created Groupon to help enrich people’s lives by bringing new exciting experiences to them. So when we do the opposite, as we have in this case, it really hurts.”

That’s not quite the speech a CEO wants to make after a launch into as important a market as Japan. But it’s hard to appreciate how much of a disaster this was. It truly alienated customers.

A U.S. equivalent might be an Australian company that was pushing a service for the delivery of a complete Thanksgiving dinner for 20 people. And the dinners either arrived at 1 AM Friday or they were the equivalent of really cheap turkey TV dinners that had been left out in the sun for a few weeks. It’s not merely a lost meal. It could ruin a very special holiday and embarrass the host in the eyes of lots of friends and relatives (and, heaven forbid, in-laws). That’s not the kind of problem that is easily forgiven.

Groupon tried, though. It refunded customers’ money and then gave them gift vouchers for about 5,000 yen (about $61 U.S., at today’s exchange rates). And lots of apologies.

The retail lesson here should simply be one of caution. Social media and Mobile programs need limits, such as the ever popular “for the first 500 customers.” That’s the only way to offer quality control until you have the experience to accurately gauge likely interest.

Another Groupon lesson is the enthusiasm (sometimes unwarranted) of your suppliers. It’s not in the supplier nature to quickly shout, “I can’t handle this many orders.” Turning down money these days is a no-no, and suppliers will convince themselves they’ll somehow make it work out. Retailers have to set their own limits, just as you routinely do with technology rollouts.

You’re used to being in control. In the Social and Mobile worlds, at least for now, you’re not.


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.