The Wisdom Behind Wal-Mart’s $300 Million Social Media Investment

Written by Evan Schuman
April 21st, 2011

When Wal-Mart dropped some $300 million on Monday (April 18) buying a Silicon Valley social media startup, the very act showed an appreciation for social media that few retailers have demonstrated. But what the world’s largest retailer does with that investment over the next 6 to 12 months will reveal whether Bentonville has truly figured out social media or just sees it as fashionable fad to dump cash into.

Retailers can deal with social media in three ways. The first choice is that they can create their own area where they try and attract shoppers and say tons of great stuff about themselves. Let’s call that the Commercial approach. Second, they can get lots of people to visit big, established social sites (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.), where they can casually say lots of nice stuff about the retailer. This would be the Viral approach.

The third way is to shut-up and studiously watch what everyone is saying, from every corner of social media. That’s the Winning approach—and it’s what Wal-Mart seems to be doing with its acquisition—because the first chain that masters hearing what those folk are all saying will have the keys to the most profitable merchandising and marketing decisions ever.

The level of investment—$300+ million—is significant. For the record, Wal-Mart did not announce how much it paid for its research prey (Hey! The name is Kosmix, OK?). That “more than $300 million” pricetag was determined by one of The Wall Street Journal‘s most reliable determiners of such stats (Kara Swisher), and we’ve historically always found her figures to hold up. Even for Wal-Mart, anything costing more than $300 million is a very serious decision.

Kosmix brings with it its three sites: TweetBeat, which the company called a “real-time social media filter for live events”;, which indexes content by topics; and RightHealth, a health/medical site. But mostly it brings an approach to trying to listen to social discussions.

In a blog post on the Kosmix site by founders Venky Harinarayan and Anand Rajaraman, they tried to put their social view into context. “Quite a few of us at Kosmix have backgrounds in E-Commerce, having worked at companies such as and eBay. As we worked on the Social Genome platform, it became apparent to us that this platform could transform E-Commerce by providing an unprecedented level of understanding about customers and products, going well beyond purchase data,” they wrote. “The Social Genome enables us to take search, personalization and recommendations to the next level.”

One of the interesting aspects of social that few retailers have internalized yet is its huge influence on E-Commerce, M-Commerce and, absolutely, in-store. This is something that many analyst firms miss, because if something can’t be quantified by direct purchases or by direct purchase referrals, then it clearly couldn’t possibly exist.

In reality, it’s the absence of that direct-purchase capability that is what makes social such a powerful influencer of purchases.


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.