Macy’s Policy Statement Reveals Merged Channel Fears

Written by Evan Schuman
January 27th, 2011

Most major retail chains today talk very persuasively about their fondness for merged channel. It’s the final chapter of the channel-integration trilogy, which moves from multi-channel to cross-channel to merged-channel. But executives’ true feelings about these efforts come through in policy announcements, typically the fine print. How do the rules, the details, differ from one channel to another? Macy’s provided a great example of this Tuesday (Jan. 25), when it announced a new free shipping policy.

For years, Macy’s has had an in-store policy of free shipping for anything costing more than $50 (with the standard list of exceptions). That might apply to a customer who wants an item that isn’t in that store’s inventory but does exist in the inventory of online or another Macy’s location. Sometimes it might even be a customer convenience, such as if the customer doesn’t want to carry all of those heavy purchases home. In some cities, subways make transportation of some items impractical. But the magic price number has been $50.

On January 25, the chain announced with much flourish that it will now offer free shipping (with a somewhat lengthier list of exceptions, some impressively vague) for online customers if they spend more than $100. No acknowledgment that Macy’s has decided online customers must pony up twice as much money before they merit the free shipping offered to in-store customers.

Indeed, to stress the point, one of the exemptions to the $100 online free shipping program is “purchases in Macy’s stores.” To be fair, exemptions generally come from Legal, and the department is simply making the point that online policies do not impact the distinct in-store operations.

But what message does this send to customers? Perhaps that Macy’s still sees itself as a physical-store chain, with online shoppers being half as valuable?

Unlike some chains, the products offered by and Macy’s stores are overwhelmingly the same. And the customers, with small exceptions, are also the same. Costco, on the other hand, offers very different merchandise in-store versus online (no produce online, for instance), and its channels see very different audiences. Therefore, Costco could have such different policies without customers feeling slighted. But not so with Macy’s.

Part of the merged-channel strategy is looking at your customer touchpoints (be they physical, mobile, desktop, social or call center) the same way your customers do. That means having a goal of shared CRM databases and all other data points. Heck, a few stores even jot down notes from customer conversations so they can be shared with other associates at that same store, not to mention throughout the rest of the chain.

Having the same rules (logistics permitting) is a good place to start.


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.