Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Amazon Limits Customers Talking With Each Other
advertisement
advertisement

Amazon Limits Customers Talking With Each Other

Written by Evan Schuman
March 10th, 2010
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

With Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn leading the way, many retailers are experimenting with a wide range of approaches for creating common-interest communities for their customers, especially online. Of course, such actions start to shift some of the power away from the chains and to the consumer. Amazon last month made its first defensive move in trying to control that type of community.

What Amazon did was change how it handles E-mail. Before, comments to a discussion forum would include a customer’s real E-mail address. No more.

“Real buyer and seller E-mail addresses will be hidden by our systems. All sellers and buyers will be assigned an Amazon E-mail alias,” said an Amazon statement. “This will enable both parties to continue communicating as they do today with standard E-mail providers (such as Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.). However, that communication will happen via their new E-mail aliases instead of their real E-mail addresses. All communication will be stored and available for review in case of disputes.”

This move is very interesting. From a brand-building perspective, there are few things better than sitting back and creating a huge room for tons of your customers to gather and talk about you. In the meantime, you sit back and take notes, capturing all of the exchanges for later analysis—for both general trends and any individual situations that you can address with individual customers. That last part has become a Twitter specialty.

The E-mail problem that Amazon is now addressing is, “What happens when customers try to continue the discussions outside your room?” You quickly lose control, both in the sense of policing the room (no obscenities, SPAM, personal attacks or drug deals. I’m cutting you and you off) and being able to monitor all of the exchanges for the referenced general and specific feedback. And, yes, some of that policing might—for the short-sided among us—include deleting nice comments about your rivals and bad things said about your brand.

In an E-Commerce space, though, these exchanges can get even more dangerous. By allowing the E-mails in the open, you’re offering an easy way for your rivals to talk with your customers. Customers can talk with each other privately, complaining about a perceived plight. One person can post an unhappy experience on Amazon, and it has limited damage potential. Someone has to search for it and find it.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Amazon Limits Customers Talking With Each Other

  1. bill bittner Says:

    I actually like this idea, especially when I am buying my x rated videos … no need for the seller to know my real e-mail (just kidding).

    My only comment is that I believe the discussion of “unnecessary contacts during claims investigations.” misses the point. I think Amazon is saying that if they are confident they have all the exchanges that occured between a buyer and seller there is no need to go back to either to gather additional information. Amazon already has everything that should be needed to resolve the issue.

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

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...