Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » The Modernization Of Lord & Taylor: Its First Loyalty, Mobile Moves
advertisement
advertisement

The Modernization Of Lord & Taylor: Its First Loyalty, Mobile Moves

Written by Evan Schuman
September 16th, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

Lord & Taylor, the nation’s oldest department store (dating back to 1826), is trialing a loyalty program, based not on a customer’s dollar spend but on how frequently a store is visited. For example, two visits a month will deliver a $15 reward.

The 46-store chain is a slimmed down version of its historic self. In 2005—while part of Federated—the chain was bringing in annual revenue of about $1.6 billion. But the now-private concern today brings in annual revenue of about $492 million, according to ZoomInfo.

Although the motto that “every customer counts” is always true in retail, it’s fair to say that that’s especially true with Lord & Taylor’s customers, whose average daily purchases hit $75, said Ashley Baker, the chain’s manager of customer loyalty and credit services. The loyalty program is based on two visits, but the chain has a requirement that the customer must spend $100 per month to qualify. With an average daily purchase of $75, that’s not proving to be much of an issue. “The $100 qualifier ends up disqualifying very few people,” Baker said.

The chain started its six-month pilot in August and is initially monitored solely through Lord & Taylor’s proprietary store cards. The program will be officially launched on October 1 in Washington, D.C., which is the chain’s pilot market for this trial.

But the initiative, unlike some other loyalty programs, is not aimed at increasing revenue or profits. Rather, the goal is merely to keep more customers. “The visits were mostly strictly linked to customer retention,” said Baker, adding that most of their customers will spend the rough amount regardless of incentives. “She’s going to be spending a certain amount of money.”

A more controversial part of the campaign is Lord & Taylor’s core CRM program, which not only leverages data from its in-house card but also places a heavy reliance on capturing purchase data from other credit and debit cards that customers use. There is debate over whether it’s consistent with security payment card procedures to use credit/debit card data for anything other than processing payment card transactions, especially when the card numbers are being used as customer identification numbers. (See the related story about the card number use debate.)

Lord & Taylor officials are also exploring new ways of looking at E-Commerce and even mobile communications strategies. The chain’s E-Commerce group does not release revenue stats, but E-Commerce Director Dan Shelffo said that if his E-Commerce group was considered a store, it would rank thirtieth in highest revenue among the chain’s 46 locations.

When it comes to mobile investments, Shelffo said “we’re poking around” and that his group has made some “site modifications so that we can start to dabble” in mobile communications. But the spreadsheets do not look attractive.

“I have to protect the billion-dollar brand. When I look at the dollars that I am going to invest, I look at the return. I know what my ROI is,” Shelffo said. “When I look at mobile, I see a lot of investment.”

Full-fledged M-Commerce—where consumers can make purchases from their cell phones—is not even being considered. However, gathering mobile phone numbers for opt-in marketing campaigns is being explored very preliminarily. “We’re rolling something out in a testing environment,” he said.

One project, for example, is called “lunch break” and consists of a focused E-mail blast sent out around lunch time that notifies customers of a special sale that will only last two hours. “Instead of lunch, why don’t you shop this great offer?” Shelffo said. “The E-mail would say they could shop online or print this coupon and bring it into the store.” Most customers, he said, buy in-store.

This issue brings up the question of how in-store and online teams are incentivized. “We’re savvy enough to know” when coupons were printed and used in-store. “We know what the return is on the marketing spend.”

Even though he’s director of E-Commerce, Shelffo said he needs to do a lot to support in-store. “One way or the other, sales efforts that I drive would show up in my results bucket. I don’t have the freedom” to solely support online operations. “There are certain dollars that I have to invest” in-store.


advertisement

8 Comments | Read The Modernization Of Lord & Taylor: Its First Loyalty, Mobile Moves

  1. Dave Taylor Says:

    The PCIKnowledgeBase’s research suggests the same thing: card data’s kept in a lot of places that it shouldn’t be. That’s the sort of thing that can make both E2E Encryption and Tokenization ineffective as enterprise-wide solutions if their implementation is only focused on the payment stream, not ancillary uses of the card data. We’ve found that encryption, for example, is differentially employed when the data are used for CRM and other apps.

    I’m also interested in the role of “Data Mining” as a driver of card data retention. I think it would be really interesting to see how much of the “other uses” of card data is being driven by data mining and “new” CRM and other applications vs legacy apps that are, as Avivah said, just too expensive to re-engineer.
    thx, Dave T

  2. garbageman Says:

    This program is not innovative. Its tied to a credit card and younger buyers don’t want (or need) credit cards–they want multi-tender program. GE keeps pushing the same old story and every year the L&T customer gets a year older.

  3. Evan Schuman Says:

    Editor’s Note: I have no idea who Garbageman is, but it’s clear he knows a bit about this. We hadn’t mentioned GE in the story for space reasons, but they are indeed involved in this Lord & Taylor program.

  4. Phil Rubin Says:

    Interesting of L&T (and GE presumably) to telegraph not only their launch date and pilot but also the stated objective being solely focused around retention.

    Loyalty marketing, done right, should be about much more than retention, particularly for a department store like L&T. At $75 per transaction, they should be focused on ways to drive incremental store visits and build the basket. Part of achieving this is through integrating loyalty into the broader CRM efforts, especially those mentioned above.

  5. Margie Says:

    Garbagemen is so right. GE Money pushes the same old tired Private Label loyalty program, and LT signed to it on because it costs nothing – GE does all the loyalty heavy lifting. They tell their retail clients that a non-Private label program will hurt the private label card (not true, if structured properly). And yet the LT Private Label card generates about a third of business – what about the other customers? Sounds LT is ignoring them. Taking the easy way out with this program.

  6. Georgie Says:

    Hey, garbageman (and others),

    What would be an example of a well-executed retail loyalty program not tied to credit cards? I’d like to know more.

  7. Lhkent Says:

    Back to the ‘based on visits’ part.Customers are not stupid and they certainly know that you are just trying to get them into the store. Though the data shows that the customer is indeed coming into the store more than once a month, they likely don’t realize it. And they likely don’t like that L&T knows it and is using it in a self serving way. I’ll bet some are going to be a bit miffed by this. In my opinion is not NOT customer focused, it’s all about L&T.

  8. Matt S. Says:

    Lord & Taylor ought to teach their management staff how to treat and keep their current customers…didn’t we all learn in retailing 101 that it’s cheaper to keep a customer than develop a new one? The last time my wife visited L&T (last weekend, as a matter of fact) she was treated so badly by the management staff over a simple coupon issue that she cut up her L&T charge card in front of them…their response? “WHO CARES?” (a direct quote from their “manager on duty”).

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...