Corporate “cyberbullies” violate original spirit of e-commerce.The phenomenon of “cyberbullying” is a hot topic of late. Teens are
taking the hazing, teasing and gossip-mongering that used to be
confined to locker rooms and school cafeterias and spreading it
globally via e-mail, IM and social networking sites. Without
trivializing the real pain and suffering that vulnerable adolescents
are experiencing as a result of cyberbullying, I would suggest that a
different form of cyberbullying is exploiting defenseless online
consumers.
Web shoppers are not being made the subject of taunts or rumors by
the online retailers they frequent. However, they are experiencing a
type of corporate arm-twisting that completely goes against the
communal, innovative ethos of e-commerce. Let me give a few real-life
examples (if virtual retailing can qualify as “real life”).
Click Here to Watch the
Latest eWEEK Newsbreak Video.
Fandango, the online purveyor of movie tickets, states on its Web
site that it “entertains and informs consumers” and offers them “the
ability to select a film and conveniently buy tickets in advance.” The
Fandango.com Web site is chock full of movie-related news and games,
and the company does allow customers to buy movie tickets via Web or
phone. However, there are a few caveats that go along with their
consumer offering.
To use Fandango’s most convenient print-at-home ticket-buying
option, you must register and create a Fandango account. If you
mistakenly buy a ticket for the wrong time, theater or film, you’re out
of luck – there are no refunds or exchanges. And of the biggest
concern, Fandango enters exclusive deals with movie theaters, meaning
consumers cannot use alternate online purchasing mechanisms, such as
those provided by Yahoo and Google, to buy tickets at many theaters.
If Fandango is truly interested in giving customers maximum
convenience, why not just allow them to print tickets at home without
registering? Print-at-home sales would probably increase and customers
could be enticed to create accounts with other, non-commercial
incentives – such as social networking features to discuss their
favorite films with other Hollywood buffs or access to exclusive sneak
preview content.
E-commerce is supposed to be an open marketplace, which also casts a
shadow of doubt on Fandango’s anti-competitive exclusive deals with
movie theaters. Why not give customers a fair choice and win their
business by offering the most convenient and innovative customer
service? Isn’t the Internet supposed to be all about innovation?
And as far as offering refunds or exchanges goes, understandably
Fandango does not want customers to change their minds at the last
second, but we all know how easy it is to make a mistake when executing
an online transaction. Even providing customers a five- or 10-minute
grace period to review their ticket orders would be a giant step
forward in the convenience the company claims to offer.
Amazon's Bully-on-Demand
Amazon requires customers to create an account to make any type of
purchase, but one-ups Fandango by allowing shoppers to cancel an order
before it is shipped. However, where the e-commerce titan has really
been engaging in bullying behavior is in the area of POD
(print-on-demand) publishing.
POD publishing allows books to be printed as they are ordered,
eliminating the need for printing, storing or delivering large print
runs in expectation of sales. This has opened up the opportunity to
create and sell books to a wide variety of independent authors and
publishers, giving readers a range of choice they never previously had
available. POD publishing is a perfect example of the democratic,
“do-it-yourself” spirit of the Internet.
Yet Amazon, one of the original pioneers of e-commerce, has been
brazenly leaning on POD authors and publishers to use its proprietary
BookSurge POD publishing service. Amazon has been informing the
creators of POD books that unless they publish through BookSurge, the
“buy” button on their Amazon.com book pages will be turned off. This
would still allow them to sell books on Amazon via third-party seller
or consignment, but remove the easiest and most profitable selling
method.
Especially considering Amazon’s proud heritage as one of the
original e-commerce vendors and a source to find virtually any book
ever printed, it is sad to see the company stoop to such means of
squeezing out a few extra bucks from its POD clients, most of whom
already make very little, if any, profit. Furthermore, customers who
may be interested in having easy access to independently-produced
literature that is generally unavailable in bookstores are being cut
off. This short-sighted policy produces no winners, not even Amazon
comes out ahead.
eBay-PayPal Gang Tactics
Finally, I would be remiss not to point out some shenanigans eBay,
another veteran of the “cool” days of early e-commerce, is attempting
to pull in Australia. According to the Associated Press, eBay is
seeking permission from the Australian government to require customers
in that country to use the eBay-owned PayPal electronic payment service
to make their purchases. The company says this will better ensure trust
and security by more efficiently preventing fraud.
Yeah, right. PayPal is a fine service, but let’s get real here.
Indirectly or otherwise, eBay will increase its profit from each
Australian transaction by ensuring it collects all the commissions and
fees from payment processing. There are other safe ways to
electronically execute transactions, and if a seller and buyer would
instead prefer to privately handle payment, why shouldn’t they have
that option?
Come on, cyberbullies. Let’s return e-commerce to the open,
competitive, innovative space it started out as. After all, even the
toughest kids on the playground usually outgrow the urges to twist arms
and seize lunch money at some point.
