Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Overseas Self-Checkout Pockets Going Well Beyond U.S.
advertisement
advertisement

Overseas Self-Checkout Pockets Going Well Beyond U.S.

Written by Evan Schuman
August 7th, 2008
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

As U.S. retailers struggle to get customers to use self-checkout lanes and to manage the process, overseas merchants are moving well into Self-Checkout Phase Two, with digital cameras used to identify foods by comparing items with an image database and making self-checkout theft much more challenging with multi-chute fully automated tunnels.

Even using consumer mobile phones as handheld self-scanning devices—championed by Germany’s Metro Group—has picked up European momentum, threatening to eventually out-tech and potentially replace some self-checkout options.

Still, those technological trendsetters are found in pockets throughout Europe, Asia and Australia, with most overseas retailers still slow to embrace self-checkout, according to a new report from London-based analyst group Planet Retail.

"The fully automated tunnel scanners, which have attracted the likes of Aldi, Casino, Tesco and Schwarz Group, have not even left the laboratories of developers such as Scangineers and Wincor Nixdorf," wrote Retail Technology Analyst Björn Weber. "Furthermore, although Metro Group is currently piloting mobile phones as self-scanning devices in its Real Future Store in Tönisvorst, Germany, the technology is still at a very early stage of development."

Weber describes one of the most interesting applications being explored, namely the fully automated tunnel scanner, as being in response to things that have discouraged some consumers from even trying the machines.

"The irritating ‘red alerts’ and the warning voice notice—’unexpected item in the baggage area’—can alienate first-time users," Weber said. "These machines often require staff assistance and cannot solve minor problems without the help of an employee."

Dutch start-up company Scangineers tried to craft a different approach. "After scanning an item, the customer places it on a conveyor belt, which will only begin to move if the embedded scales have measured the correct weight of the product," Weber said. "The conveyor then transports the item through a tunnel in which an infrared dimension control double-checks that only scanned items pass through it. After the belt, there are two chutes from which the customer can then pack purchases into his or her own bag or box."

The report details many of the key retailers and their self-checkout approaches, after pointing out that most of the largest American retailers—"with the remarkable exception of Target"—have embraced self-checkout. But the bulk of the rest of the world is more apprehensive. That said, for those merchants who have deployed, they are often exceeding their U.S. counterpart.

"Tesco has been one of the more active European retailers in terms of its rollout of self-checkouts. Today, more than 450 of Tesco’s stores in the U.K. are equipped with NCR’s Fastlane. The machines are also common at Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer in the U.K., but not in the rest of Europe," the report said. "By comparison, Carrefour, Auchan and Metro Group have each installed stationary self-checkouts at between 30 and 60 stores in their respective home markets. In the U.K., Tesco has trial-ed a system in a few of its stores whereby self-service checkouts account for half of the tills in use. In London, for example, the high-traffic Bishopsgate Tesco Metro store is equipped with 20 compact-sized scan & bag machines and 20 manned tills. Variations, such as those developed by British DIY retailer B&Q together with Wincor Nixdorf, make self-checkout more deployable for purchases of larger items such as roof beams or cement bags."

The report also looked at the currency differences and their self-checkout impact. "In the U.S., U.K., the Netherlands and many parts of Scandinavia, more than 70 percent of transactions in retail outlets are cashless. However, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Republic of Ireland, Greece and CEE still use cash for most payments. In these markets, self-checkouts have to cope with a large amount of coins and notes," the report said. "Cash recycling machines have also been tested without the use of self-scanning devices at manned checkouts. Ahold-owned ICA in Norway and Shell forecourt stores in Germany are deploying Gunnebo and Wincor Nixdorf devices respectively. This equipment can protect the store against robberies and ensure that the cash at the tills is always balanced. The most impressive example of the deployment of such equipment has been in a Super U supermarket in Western France. Launched in February 2007, Alain Diserbeau, the owner of the 3,400 square metre Super U in Herbignac, equipped all 18 checkouts and the store’s bakery with cash-recyclers from Wincor Nixdorf. Although the cashier still scans each item manually, staff are no longer required to handle cash because customers pay into the machines integrated in the desks."

Another self-checkout issue is the security issue and the always-popular-with-consumers tactic of periodic manual checks. One European retailer has tried a different tact.

"To get around the lengthy rescanning process, Albert Heijn in the Netherlands, with the help of new software, has reduced the rescanning process to a few items. For example, staff now only check high value products rather than re-scan the whole trolley. The software also chooses customers that should be re-scanned on the basis of their shopping history and, in the worst case scenario, on the basis of their shoplifting history," the report said. "Nevertheless, self-scanning without any form of re-scanning by employees is too risky for the retailer. Indeed, all grocery chains offering self-scanning with mobile devices limit the service to known customers, who identify themselves with a loyalty card. Although retailers claim that this is because handheld devices can be stolen, this policy has obviously been introduced to avoid shoplifting."

Weber argues that a typical response—attacking shrink by integrating more weight-check into mobile self-scanning—isn’t always practical.

"It would be very expensive to equip every shopping trolley with scales that are radio-connected to the store network. A balance positioned in the floor at the point of payment to control the weight of the complete shopping trolley could be helpful," Weber wrote. "However, this solution may not make sense with the weight of lighter products, such as nylon stockings. Furthermore, the customer would have to convince any children sitting within the trolley to get out of their seat at the point of payment."


advertisement

3 Comments | Read Overseas Self-Checkout Pockets Going Well Beyond U.S.

  1. RabidWolf Says:

    Maybe I’m getting too old, but isn’t this all just overuse of tech? It must be cheaper to hire a couple of people to see if something is a potato or a squash, weigh it, and hit the button. There will still need to be an army of employees to get everyone sorted out when the alarms and buzzers go off because the apples were scanned as tomatoes. Frankly, I think this is a waste of tech.

    I never use self checkout. It is too annoying, and some item always doesn’t have a readable barcode or isn’t in the database, or some other issue.

    And it doesn’t save the CUSTOMER anything!!!

    But then I’m old.

    Grins,

    RW

  2. Bjorn Weber Says:

    RW,

    I highly appreciate your comment. Retailers want to save the customers the queues. It is true that retailers could also fight queues by hiring more staff. But they mostly don’t want to. They aim to save labour costs especially in saturated markets were cost cutting is their most efficient way to increase profits (more than 60 per cent of their costs are labour costs).

    It is likely that tomatoes and apples (and all other products) in some years are identified by picture recognition software — without any barcode or RFID chip. If you think about the rapid development of picture recognition in the manufacturing industry (robotic), and if you take into account that already today bottle return machines identify items only by picture recognition, it is likely that these technologies will also automate the future checkout.

    Bjorn Weber
    Planet Retail, Frankfurt, Germany

  3. pierre-arnaud Says:

    Hi,

    this article is excellent, I’m interested in going deeper in the analysis. You mentioned a report published by “planet retail” but I don’t find it (I’ve looked for it in the special report section on http://www.plannetretail.net )? What is the title of this report? Where can I find it ?

    I have two aditional questions :
    - Why mobile self scanning devices are not much more used in retail ? Is that only because of the risk of theft or is there any other more intrinsic reason ?
    - Why the project of fully automated tunnel scanners have not left the laboratories ?

    Thanks for your answer,

    Pierre-Arnaud.

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

What’s The Rush For New PCI Call Center Requirements?

And I have not heard anyone mention the impact on companies who provide quality improvement services. Many merchants hire quality improvement companies to review their audio recordings to provide guidance on how to improve their sales staff’s effectiveness in customer service and sales retention. PCI Council needs to rethink this requirement until there is a widely available commercially viable solution. Read more...
Another ridiculous decision where regulators don't think critically enough about the unintended consequences of their decision. This will be a huge problem for the credit and collections industry. We have to keep all recorded calls for other reasons not related to cc information. We can't purge all of our calls and we don't have the technology to not record part of the conversation. Even if we did, I am not sure we could afford it. Read more...
This "clarification" is causing a lot of panic with large FS clients who now appear to be non-compliant after spending 7 figure sums on their compliance programs. The only alternative to call recording would now appear to be some sort of IVR/push button type interrupt to take card data away from the contact centre. The council is a position to force that sort of process and technology change and this may backfire on them and the vendors that lobbied hard for this clarification. Read more...
PCI council has made a one-sided decision; They should have done a much more in-depth research that could have provided more insight on what regards to the implications of such decision. Read more...

Will Old OS Cause PCI Violation? No, But Marketing Still Says So

This is an interesting issue, because there's more to it than what's apparent on the surface. PA-DSS requires supported and patched operating systems and other software components (e.g., databases, libraries, Java, etc.) per PA-DSS 7.1.b and 8.1, and the option for compensating controls simply isn't there. Merchants can make use of compensating controls for most PCI DSS requirements, but only when legitimate constraints exist and only in ways that meet the intent and rigor of the requirement and go above and beyond the other PCI DSS requirements. Read more...
Why would one automatically upgrade to a "new" OS -- some of the older versions of certain OS-es are more stable and more robust than the crap being peddled today. This is yet another clear example of PCI SSC being out of touch with reality. Rather than requiring a "current" OS, the requirement should be to demonstrate the OS in use is stable and robust, and is adequately hardened against threats. Read more...
There are compensating controls that encrypt the swipe at the driver level as it enter the PC, there are hardware encrypting card swipes so the cardholder data is already encrypted before it comes to the PC -- either of these, especially the second, would remove the OS entirely from a cardholder data risk profile. Read more...
In my opinion, the only thing the vendor did wrong was they didn’t know of that FAQ entry. Even if they did, it changes nothing about the need for merchants to update software that no longer receives updates. Read more...

MasterCard Blinks, Drops Dec. 31 Level 2 PCI Deadline

Reciprocity between MasterCard and Visa was always been a factor in Acquirer merchant level assignments. The brief removal of reciprocity generated a great deal of interest in being able to be classified at a lower level in MasterCard's world. Nevertheless the return of the reciprocity language in the December changes did not effectively create any new Level 2 merchants, but it DID dash the hopes of a lot of them.... :-( Read more...
Let's given them credit??? For being idiotic in the first place? Not on your life! Everyone has just had to scramble and include the costs of the previously announced M/C requirement in their 2010 budgets, and start negotiating with the QSAs for the additional services. All for naught! Read more...
"A bunch of Level 3 and Level 4 merchants just became Level 2s". Is this an accurate statement? MasterCard & Visa have historically included the caveat "or is a Level X in another brand" in their level setting criteria. MasterCard appeared to back way from this in the June pronouncement, and have simply returned to the status quo. Have Acquirers have been tracking and reporting merchants at separate levels by brand? Read more...
I stick by my comment (quoted in the column) about a bunch of L3 and L4 merchants becoming L2s and requiring an onsite. To me, what made MasterCard's original requirement for an onsite assessment for L2s palatable was that they took away their reciprocity provision. That is, they seemed to focus on larger merchants with over a million MasterCard trans/year. With reciprocity in place, a lot of smaller merchants are pulled into the onsite requirement. Rather than causing confusion, I think reciprocity will lead to additional work for processors and acquirers. Read more...

Retailers Sue POS Vendor, Questions Raised Where PCI Duties Stop

I would add a couple more questions: "did the breach involve the use of the default passwords?" (The story doesn't say.) And "were the default passwords used by Computer World to remotely administer the store systems?" "where is the PCI auditor in all this?" Did the restaurant group think they didn't need an audit because Radiant was (mis)representing Aloha as PCI compliant? How is a retailer or even a PCI auditor to know otherwise? A PCI auditor is not necessarily a qualified computer forensic investigator capable of finding the card data on the hard drives. They can only base a decision on information given to them by others. Read more...
There are so many holes in the process it will be difficult to pin blame on just one constituent. It is ridiculous that the technology exists to better secure these transactions (PIN, EMV, etc) yet banks won't use them. Only the banks or government can force this change, and retailers will suffer until then. Read more...
A major issue in this case will be if the restaurants had any support agreements in place with Computer World and if so what those agreements say. In my experience many single unit/small operators choose to skip the support agreements in favor of a "pay as you go" arrangement. In this scenario I can't imagine how the POS VAR can be held responsible for a system they don't own nor exclusively manage. Read more...
There is a big difference in having the POS installation guide say "make sure you set this password because the security of your CHD depends on this" vs. a POS application not storing the CHD in the first place. Traditionally only the merchant was liable for breaches and PCI related fees (fines). Maybe dragging some of the vendors into the liability mud fight will open the eyes of some of these vendors. Read more...

Should Credit Card Transactions Be Free? There May Be A Way

Here in the Netherlands, where the population is notoriously penny-pinching, credit card acceptance is amazingly low. It's both a result of the consumer not wanting to pay interest on everyday purchases as well as merchants not giving up a slice of the action. It is both legal and common to pass the processing fee onto the customer as a surcharge. Now things are moving to leave the credit cards behind: mobile phone payments are becoming more and more common here, and the transaction fees are minimal. Parking and entertainment (movie/concert tickets, nightclubs) have been amongst the first, and it's rapidly gaining momentum because the market has been hungry for the convenience at a price it is willing to pay. Read more...
"Free" is an illusion. Don't charge one person but charge double to someone else. I am very skeptical on anyone who says that advertising will create valid cashflow. Just look at the advertising struggles in a TiVo world. And if you sell your customers data, just be warned that the one group that might have issue with that are you customers (which to me is very important to cashflow. Read more...
Another factor not mentioned here is the impending costs that the processors and issuers are going to incur when someone decides on an end-to-end encryption method, and it then becomes government mandated. I can guarantee that this is a when question and not an if question. The back-end networks are pretty antiquated right now, and it's going to cost billions to replace everything. The cost of tech may be going down, but the cost of replacing millions of servers and hardware, and creating new, proprietary, software is still really expensive. Read more...
Accepting credit cards are not "risk-free" for merchants, contrary to Jim's comments above. Chargebacks are an expense - both in terms of actual transaction reversals and costs associated with managing the process. Chargeback rules and expenses can be everything from a thorny issue to an onerous expense for some merchants, especially for convenience stores that allow customers to pay for gasoline at the pump, or other retailers that allow in-store self-checkout options. Read more...
I've wondered for years why the price of transactions has been so high. Phone companies long ago started offering unlimited calling for flat rates because they understood that in many cases it cost more to report on the transactions (calls) than it did to fulfill them. Read more...
If a home-owner defaults on the mortgage, who is taking the risk? The bank making the loan to the consumer or the person selling the house? It is obviously the bank that takes this risk and is rewarded for that risk through interest rate charges. In my mind, we have mixed together two distinct and unrelated transactions. Read more...
The one big factor not mentioned in this article is who will take over the risk ? Taking credit cards is risk free to merchants and the issuing Banks take the risk if a customer defaults on the payments ! If you had a "interchange free" payment system will the merchants assume the risk ? Also, if there isn't enough profit for the issuing banks they will stop issuing credit cards which will in turn kill our economy. Read more...

The Dangerous Out-Of-Scope PCI Charade

If tokens are ever deemed in-scope, then where does the line stop? I ask this because it would mean that all timestamps, sequential number, random numbers or any other piece of information that may or may not be used to generate a token is within scope -- all data a POS uses and stores, not just payment data. Read more...
Having the ability to do both Tokenization and End to End Encryption (not mere point to point) can have tremendous scope and risk reduction benefits and agility to adapt to change in this fast moving compliance landscape. Being able to have both on tap from a single platform is a solid approach to avoiding the pitfalls. Read more...
But the consumer walks into a particular retail chain, gives their payment card to someone wearing that chain's uniform and the card is swiped. If, six months later, there's a breach and that card was misused, it's the retailer who will in the spotlight. They're the deep pocket and, therefore, the target. If the consumer is angry and wants to cut off business, it will hit the retailer. Therefore, if the retailer is going to end up being blamed no matter what, they have to stay involved. Read more...
True, that someone may be storing a token-to-PAN cross reference. But that would be the bank, not the retailer. If the bank is not sure they can keep their data secure, then there are bigger problems to be addressed than bringing tokens into scope. Read more...
Good general point, Steve, but for the record, not all tokenization is done the same way. Many tokens are associated with lookup lists that allow for them to re-matched to the card data if it's needed, such as for a chargeback. A token doesn't have to be decryptable (is that a word?) for there to be a way to access the original data. Read more...
The out-of-scope argument is very valid but in reference to tokens, the premise of temporarily out-of-scope or abruptly deemed in-scope is flawed. Conway was quoted “anything that could be made unreadable can, in various ways, be made readable again,” this statement is true when talking about encryption technologies (all encryption technologies) but not so with true tokens. True tokens are in no way related to the original data other than as a reference key. Read more...