Best Buy’s Black Friday Fiasco: When Were Bosses Told?

Written by Evan Schuman
January 4th, 2012

Best Buy’s Black Friday disaster, when it took and confirmed Black Friday orders in November and then waited until a few days before Christmas to cancel those orders, is a huge deal precisely because it strikes at the very heart of E-Commerce fears. Namely, a consumer needs to feel confident that once an order is paid for, the product will absolutely be arriving shortly.

Although Best Buy has yet to spell out how this happened, the most likely scenario is that it was the so-called perfect storm of bad timing and possibly a quantity typo. Susan Busch, senior director of public relations at Best Buy, said many of the specific problems behind this incident are not yet clear, because the company is still working on its internal investigation. But what is known is that the problem involved a lot of people ordering some of the most deeply discounted Black Friday specials quickly and that “there was a delay” in processing to allow for the chain to “catch up on the orders.”

Many of those products were very limited, given the steep discounts. Best Buy’s suppliers, the manufacturers, “would only give us so many” at that price, Busch said.

Among the critical details that are not yet explicit are specific timing. When did Best Buy senior management understand the problem? How much of a delay happened while employees desperately tried to find the—unknown to them at that point—non-existent merchandise? In a $50 billion chain, news can travel upstream very slowly. When the news is bad, it travels upstream even more slowly.

That timing issue is essential. Had Best Buy learned of this sooner, it might have had time to work with manufacturers and have the purchased items delivered in time for Christmas. Worst-case scenario, it could have notified customers much sooner, giving them more time to replace the gifts.

The items at issue were popular electronics (games, cameras, laptops, etc.) and were highly discounted. Some have challenged the suggestion that Best Buy couldn’t get any more of those products, given that other chains were ordering and selling them, too. But the Best Buy orders reflected special discount arrangements with suppliers, so the shortage wasn’t about, for example, a PlayStation 3. It was about the very small number of PlayStation 3s that Best Buy’s supplier was willing to provide at that price.

(Related story: “Best Buy’s Black Friday Cancellations Were “Bait-and-Switch Breach Of Contracts”)

The next element is the nature of the Best Buy inventory system. The system enables some people to place in their carts more items than are available, on the assumption that not all cart purchases will be consummated. When enough of an item are actually purchased, then the system is supposed to remove that item from that which is available. Clearly, something glitched there.

One possible explanation is a typo in the quantity of the items the supplier was providing to Best Buy.


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.