Twitter Commerce Hurdles: Excessive Popularity and, Ironically, Twitter Itself

Written by Evan Schuman
June 23rd, 2011

As chains continue to explore ways to cash in on Retail via Twitter, apps focused on such efforts are running into an unlikely obstacle: Twitter itself. For example, one such retail application—called Tweetalicious, which rolled out on Monday (June 20)—forces users to agree to a very frightening list of very-visible permissions.

Before downloading the Twitter Commerce app, a user must agree that the vendor can read the consumer’s tweets (including private direct messages), “follow new people,” “update your profile” and—my personal favorite—”post tweets for you.” Yeah, what consumer would have any problem with any of that? A third-party wants to send tweets out under my name? No problem.

“I don’t think it’s the best choice of words,” said Harrison Lee, the Tweetalicious co-founder/chief marketing officer, who also dubbed the warnings “intimidating.” But, he added, it’s not his firm’s fault; Twitter dictated that wording.

“It’s unfortunate that we don’t have any control. The whole page comes from Twitter,” Lee said. “I don’t know why Twitter would insist on those words.”

One likely reason is a very literal interpretation of what an app does. Yes, technically, any Twitter app is going to be able to do all those things, in the same way that Microsoft’s Outlook E-mail client can send E-mails under your name and access all your most private messages. The difference is that Outlook is presumably not sending messages that its human user didn’t write. (That said, if any E-mail client would opt to start sending its own messages without its owner’s knowledge, it would almost certainly be Outlook. To be fair, Gmail would want to, but only Outlook would really do it.)

Messages that are almost certainly going to needlessly scare off lots of consumers are only one hurdle for retailers looking to try and mine during the Twitter tweets-of-gold-rush era. The Tweetalicious approach is a good example of what works with Retail via Twitter and what some of the daunting 140-character challenges are.

The way that app works is consumers are first shown—after they sign away their life—a series of retail categories such as electronics, fashion & apparel, health & beauty, etc. The next drilldown includes lists of consumer goods manufacturers and retailers, and users choose their favorites—presumably brands from which they want to hear offers.

How extensive are those lists? In fashion & apparel, for example, the app lists 900 brands, Lee said. For the average consumer, though, how many names will really be considered? Like Google, a response might display 14,000 responses. Only the first 10 to 20 responses are going to see meaningful boosts, though, and the boost for any listing beyond the first 100 will be trivial.

The Tweetalicious response is that it—at some unspecified future point—will offer to sell chains and consumer goods brands sponsorships, which would give “higher priority” in the displays.

One area that Tweetalicious is not planning to offer is sponsor exclusivity, and this could prove an important retail concern. For instance, it’s certainly worth a lot to Target to be able to send lots of compelling offers to people who say they want to hear offers from Target.


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.