US20140214518A1

US20140214518A1 - System and method for price matching and comparison

Info

Publication number: US20140214518A1
Application number: US13/754,620
Authority: US
Inventors: Paul Hatch; Chad Fox; Melisa Rodriguez; Joseph Mejstrik
Original assignee: Wal Mart Stores Inc
Current assignee: Walmart Apollo LLC
Priority date: 2013-01-30
Filing date: 2013-01-30
Publication date: 2014-07-31
Also published as: US10467645B2; US20140278883A1

Abstract

A method and system for providing a consumer comparative pricing data from at least two merchants is discussed. In one aspect of the invention a customer of a merchant queries a database containing time and location specific pricing data for competitors of the first merchant. If the query shows that the customer could have purchased the same item or items for a lower price at a competitor, the first merchant awards the customer an on-line credit that is redeemable at the merchant. In another aspect, a consumer uploads an image of a competitor's receipt. The item specific data on the receipt is converted to UPC codes on an item by item basis. These UPC codes are then compared against the merchant's pricing database and the consumer is provided data set comparing the prices the consumer paid to the prices the consumer would have paid had the consumer shopped at the merchant.

Description

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to computer software, and more particularly to a merchant based method and system for providing product price comparison and other information to a consumer. One aspect of the invention includes a merchant based price matching method and system for providing a redeemable credit to a customer if that customer could have purchased an item for a lesser price at another merchant. Another aspect of the invention is to invite the customers of competitors to use the invention to compare the prices they paid at the competitor with the prices at the merchant.
One problem frequently encountered by merchants is the inability to fully engage with customers and create “customer loyalty” through traditional advertising. Currently, many merchants attempt to gain and retain customers via advertising campaigns that highlight low prices for specific items for a given period of time: a typical “sale” price. This type of advertising campaign works well for shoppers that are interested in that particular item but have little effect on those customers that are not interested in that item.
Therefore some merchants also advertise themselves as being “the low cost leader” or “not being undersold” or “always having low prices” in an attempt to instill within a consumer's mind a positive perception that goes beyond shopping for a specific “on sale” item. This approach to advertising often has negative to mixed results as JCP Penney discovered in 2012 due to customers needing the “on sale” “hook” to bring them into a store.
Merchants need a way to combine both marketing concepts to achieve maximum return on their marketing investments. To accomplish this goal a merchant needs a tangible, interactive system and method of providing “continuing education” to existing and potential customers regarding cost savings that the customer could have obtained had he/she shopped at the merchant instead of at a competitor. It is one thing to advertise that Merchant A is the “low cost leader” but it is quite another to show a consumer, on an item-by-item basis, that the consumer could have saved “X” dollars had they bought all of their items at Merchant A instead of Merchant B.
In addition, a merchant needs an interactive system and method to prove they are the “low cost” leader and thus neutralize any “on sale” incentives offered by their competitors. One such system would incorporate a typical “ad match” guarantee but be entirely online and provide a customer a rebate in the form of a credit that can be used for subsequent purchases. Such a system would create loyalty among customers in several ways. First, the customer experiences exceptional convenience. The customer knows that there is no need to travel to another store to save money or carry sales circulars into a store as proof of a lower sales price. Second, the customer still receives the psychological benefits of participating in advertised “sales” because all “sale” prices are valid at one merchant. Third, the customer receives tangible evidence in the form of a redeemable credit proving that the merchant really “will not be undersold”.
Because such a system and method will be used by the general public it must be simple to use and require minimum input and thought from shoppers, particularly those who do not enjoy shopping and do not have the time to engage in time consuming cost comparisons.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one aspect, the invention is a computer implemented method for providing a merchant's customer with a redeemable credit based on a difference in purchase price. The method comprises the steps of storing in a first electronic database data related to a customer's purchasing transaction at the merchant. The stored data includes the date of the transaction, the price of at least one item purchased in the transaction, and a transaction specific identifier that is printed on the receipt that is given to the customer. The method also includes storing in a second electronic database date specific pricing data for items sold by at least one competitor of the merchant.
The customer submits an electronic request (e.g., via a webpage) for the method of the invention to query the databases and compare the price paid by the customer at the merchant with the price of the identical item as advertised by one or more of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction. The method retrieves the customer's purchase data from the first database and compares the customer's data with pricing data from said second database containing the competitor pricing data. The method identifies any item purchased by the customer which was offered for sale at a lower price by at least one of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction.
The method then calculates the difference between the price paid by the customer at the merchant and the identified lowest price offered by one of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction. The customer then receives a redeemable credit at said merchant for the calculated difference in price. [We may also want to include that it provides information about when the merchant's prices were lower than its competitors' advertised prices.—Paul]
Another aspect of the invention is a computer implemented system for providing a merchant's customer with a redeemable credit based on a difference in purchase price. The system according to the invention comprises a first electronic database that stores purchase data generated by a customer's purchasing transaction at the merchant. The stored purchase data comprises the date of the transaction, the price of at least one item purchased in the transaction, and a transaction specific identifier that is printed on the receipt that is given to said customer, among other data desired by the merchant.
The system also comprises a second electronic database that stores date specific pricing data for items sold by at least one competitor of the merchant.
A portal (e.g., a webpage) is provided for receiving a request from the customer to compare the price paid by the customer at the merchant with the price of the identical item as advertised by one or more of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction.
A data comparison engine retrieves the customer's purchase data from the first database and compares the customer's data with pricing data from the second database and identifies any item purchased by the customer which was offered for sale at a lower price by at least one of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction.
The system's price calculation engine calculates the difference between the price paid by the customer at the merchant and the identified lowest price offered by one of the merchant's competitors. The calculated difference is provided to an award module that is capable of automatically awarding the customer a credit equal to the calculated difference that is redeemable at the merchant.
A further aspect of the invention is a computer implemented method for providing price comparison data to a consumer. The method comprises the steps of electronically receiving an image of a retail receipt issued by a first merchant, wherein the receipt contains purchase data and wherein the purchase data comprises (1) the date of the purchase, (3) the location of the purchase, (3) a price for at least one purchased item, and (4) at least one item specific characteristic for each purchased item.
Selected purchase data, including at least one item specific characteristic for each item listed on said receipt is then transcribed and placed into a machine readable format in a data file.
The method then matches at least one transcribed item specific characteristic for each item to a UPC code based on a set of matching criteria thereby obtaining a first merchant UPC code list containing at least one item listed on the receipt.
The second merchant store location that is closest to the location of the purchase from the first merchant is identified. The second merchant's pricing database, which contains the second merchant's UPC codes and prices, is searched to identify the UPC codes on the first merchant UPC code list that are sold at the closest second merchant store. If UPC code matches are found the consumer receives a data set comprising (a) a list of items purchased at said first merchant, (b) the price for items purchased at said first merchant, and (c) the price offered by the second merchant for at least one item purchased at said first merchant.
A still further aspect of the invention is a computer system for providing price comparison data to a consumer. The system comprises an intake module for receiving an electronic image of a retail receipt issued by a first merchant wherein the receipt contains purchase data for at least one item. The system also has a transcription module for converting the purchase data to a machine readable format. A UPC matching module assigns at least one UPC code to at least one item identified on the receipt to create a first merchant UPC code list.
The system includes a pricing database for a second merchant. The second merchant pricing database contains UPC and price data for items sold by a second merchant. The database is searchable on a location specific basis. A search engine conducts the search of the second merchant pricing database to compares the UPC codes associated with the first merchant's receipt with location specific UPC codes for the second merchant. The search engine identifies any matching UPC codes and collects second merchant pricing data for the matched UPC codes.
A data compilation module receives the data from the search engine and presents the consumer a data set comprising (a) a list of items purchased at the first merchant, (b) the price for items purchased at the first merchant, and (c) the price offered by the second merchant for at least one item purchased at the first merchant.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These and other more detailed and specific features of the present invention are more fully disclosed in the following specification, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, in which:

FIG. 1A is representative of a retail receipt from one merchant.

FIG. 1B is a representative retail receipt from a second merchant.

FIG. 2 is a schematic of one possible system according to the invention.

FIG. 3 illustrates a webpage that could serve as an entry portal to the method and system of the invention that provides a redeemable credit to customers.

FIG. 4 illustrates a webpage that could serve as an entry portal to the method and system of the invention that provides a redeemable credit to customers.

FIG. 5 illustrates a webpage showing price matching results of the method and system according to the invention.

FIG. 6 illustrates a webpage entry portal for a price comparison system and method according to the invention.

FIG. 7 illustrates a possible consumer experience as the consumer uploads a receipt to the price comparison system and method.

FIG. 8 illustrates a possible consumer experience after the consumer uploads a receipt to the price comparison system and method.

FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating the price comparison system and method according to the invention.

FIG. 10 illustrates a possible consumer experience where the consumer receives the results of the price comparison system and method according to the invention.

FIG. 11 illustrates a possible consumer experience where the consumer receives the results of the price comparison system and method according to the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous details are set forth to provide an understanding of one or more embodiments of the present invention. Furthermore, the following detailed description is of the best presently contemplated mode of carrying out the invention. The description is not intended in a limiting sense, and is made solely for the purpose of illustrating the general principles of the invention. The various features and advantages of the present invention may be more readily understood with reference to the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
While the invention is described with respect to various embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit, scope, and teaching of the invention. Accordingly, the invention herein disclosed is limited only as specified in the claims.
In one broad aspect, the invention is a computer implemented system and method for matching a competitor's sales price and automatically providing a merchant's customer with a redeemable credit based on the difference in sales price. More specifically, the invention determines whether a customer who purchased an item at the merchant could have purchased the same item for a lower price elsewhere. If the customer could have purchased the identical item elsewhere at a lower price the invention provides the customer a credit for the price difference. The credit can be used during a subsequent purchase at the merchant.
Stated alternatively, the invention compares the prices listed on a customer's receipt with the prices for identical items sold at competitors. If the customer could have purchased the item at a competitor for a lesser price, the customer receives a credit for the price difference.
In preferred embodiments the redeemable credit takes the form of a credit to an online account created by the customer at the merchant. Such credits are often referred to as “e-cards” and are similar to online gift certificates known in the art.
The price matching aspect of the invention is best described in the context of a typical shopping experience. Thus, the description begins with a customer purchasing one or more items at a merchant that practices the invention. Turning now to the drawings, where like numerals refer to like parts or elements, FIG. 1A represents a typical retail receipt used in the practice of this aspect of the invention. Such receipts are presented to retail customers upon completion of a purchase. Receipts such as the one shown in FIG. 1A contain a significant amount of data regarding the purchase (“purchase data”). Purchase data typically includes the location of the purchase 10 (if the merchant has multiple locations) the date and time of the purchase 12, a list of individual items purchased 14, the price paid for each item 16, and an abbreviated identifier for each item 18, among other data.
The receipts utilized in the practice of the invention contain a transaction specific identifier, 20. The transaction specific identifier 20 (typically a numeric or alpha-numeric code) is created as part of the purchase data that is generated with each transaction and is unique to each transaction. All data generated and related to the customer's purchase is keyed to the transaction specific identifier 20 for later retrieval as discussed in more detail below.
Turning now to FIG. 2, the method according to the invention includes the step of storing in a first electronic database 22 the purchase data related to a customer's purchasing transaction at the merchant 19. The stored purchase data includes data found on the receipt including the date of the transaction 12, at least one item-specific characteristic for each item (e.g., price, 16; abbreviated name, 18; etc.), and a transaction specific identifier 20. Other item-specific characteristics that can be stored (or that is retrievable from other databases) include the stock keeping unit number (SKU), a uniform product code (UPC) 24, a detailed description of the item (e.g., Mack's Earplugs 12 count), manufacturer's name, and any other data related to the item that is desired by the merchant. All of this data is stored in the first electronic database 22 in a searchable format (or is retrievable from other databases) and is keyed to the transaction specific identifier 20.
The method and system also involves storing date specific pricing data for items sold by at least one competitor of the merchant in a second electronic database date 26. As with the first electronic database 22 containing the merchant's data, the second electronic database containing competitors' data is designed to permit searching, identification, and retrieval of at least one item specific characteristic for each item contained in the database.
The concept of creating a database of competitors' pricing data for comparison purposes is not new. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,198,192 discusses collecting a database of pricing information for a number of merchants. However, the concepts discussed in the prior art primarily rely on merchants voluntarily submitting pricing data to such a database (as in the '192 patent) or collecting the data piecemeal from individual shoppers, etc.
Neither approach works well in the real world. A merchant typically considers its entire pricing structure and data to be confidential business information and/or a trade secret. Similarly, reliance on piece-meal submissions from consumers is unworkable because there is no reliable way to conduct quality control on the submissions and there is a large potential for false or fraudulent submissions to manipulate the price matching process.
Currently, if a merchant desires accurate price comparison data for a competitor someone must manually gather that information (e.g., review sales circulars or send people to stores to gather prices) and/or supplement that data with various automated price gathering techniques (e.g., “web crawlers”, etc.). Even if the competitor raw price data collected manually or via automated techniques is accurate, that data must still be organized and cross-referenced to obtain a searchable database.
For example, UPC codes are theoretically the same across merchants and could serve as a quick way to cross-reference items at different merchants. However, someone must still match a UPC code with a competitor's price. Sometimes this process can be automated and accomplished by a computer. Sometimes it cannot. Similarly, UPC codes are not always available and are sometimes not included in sales circulars. If UPC codes are not available then non-standardized or merchant specific identifiers (e.g., SKUs or abbreviated descriptions or pictures of the item in a sales circular) are used to identify specific items and what they cost.
The availability of UPC codes still does not remove all issues regarding matching a competitor's prices to specific items. Some merchants may have a special packaging arrangement with a manufacturer that requires a distinct UPC code. Thus, a 16 oz plastic bottle of Heinz ketchup sold at Target might have a UPC code that is different from a 16 oz plastic bottle of Heinz ketchup sold at Walgreens although both may have the same price.
There is also a temporal component to the price comparison databases used in the practice of the invention that complicates matters. Assuming that one is able to accurately identify a competitor's non-UPC coded item or even a UPC coded item (e.g., a 16 oz bottle of Heinz ketchup), merchants regularly offer short term “sales” for those items. This means that data points in the price comparison database must be continually monitored and updated to account for short term “sales” and regular price changes.
In short, compiling a reliable, accurate and timely database of comparative price data for a plurality of merchants is an onerous task and requires substantial resources. Very few merchants have the resources to do this. Historically, when merchants need comparative pricing data most merchants hire a third party (e.g., The Nielsen Company) to gather and organize that information. However, for ease of discussion and description it is assumed that the second electronic database 26 utilized in the practice of the invention is assembled and maintained by the merchant that utilizes the invention. If a third party database is used the system is modified to allow the merchant access to the third party database.
At some point after the initial purchase, the merchant receives a request from its customer to compare the prices paid by the customer at the merchant with the advertised prices of identical items at one or more of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction. As shown in FIG. 2, the request is generated at a system portal 28 that provides the customer access to the invention. The portal 28 can be any type of interface that provides a customer access to the system. Examples of such interfaces include a dedicated webpage 30 managed by the merchant or mobile apps 32 such as those used on iPhones and Android cell phones. Links to the system via a merchant's social media portal (e.g., Facebook) can be utilized as well. FIG. 3 is an exemplary screenshot of a webpage portal 30 that provides a customer access to the price matching aspect of the invention. Mobile apps or social media page links providing an analogous interface can be used as well.
In a preferred practice of the invention a customer obtains access to the invention through an online account with the merchant. Such online accounts for online shopping are common in the industry and need not be discussed in detail here.
Returning to FIG. 3 the portal 30 invites the customer to create an account or login to an existing account, 34. FIG. 4 is an example of a portal entry page 30 after an existing customer has logged into the system. Once the customer is logged into the system the invention requires certain information from the customer.
The input data required of a customer can vary depending on how a merchant's database is set up or other factors (e.g., marketing studies). For example, a portal could be arranged to require the customer to manually enter various pieces of data from the customer's receipt (e.g., location of store 10, date of purchase 12, individual UPC codes 18, and prices 16). However, requiring entry of that much data greatly diminishes customer interest and use. Generally speaking, usage of an online system is inversely proportional to the amount of data a user is required to provide.
Therefore, in one embodiment of the price matching aspect of the invention the customer only need submit the transaction specific identifier 20 to initiate the practice of the invention. One method of submitting a transaction specific identifier 20 is graphically illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4. The transaction specific identifier 20 (“TC#”) is a data point in the portal's data entry box 36. As noted previously, all of the data associated with the customer's purchase is electronically stored and keyed to the transaction specific identifier 20. Thus, providing the transaction specific identifier 20 gives the system a key to access, sort, and retrieve all of the purchase data contained in the first electronic database 22.
As with any online portal, it may be possible to automatically generate and submit fake transaction specific identifiers 20 in an attempt to fraudulently obtain redeemable credits at a merchant. Therefore, in more preferred embodiments of the invention, the system also requests information that is specific to the customer's purchase such as the receipt date 12 and/or the total cost shown on the receipt as shown in the data entry box 36 in FIGS. 3 and 4.
The customer submits the required transaction specific identifier and any additional required receipt purchase data and the resulting request for price comparison goes to a data comparison engine 38. The manner in which the electronic request reaches the data comparison engine 38 can vary with the specific architecture of the merchant's system. FIG. 2 illustrates one possible architecture in which requests from mobile apps 32 are routed through a load balancer 40 prior to passing through a firewall 42. Requests from webpage portals or social media portals are gathered in a front end website server pool 44 prior to passing through the firewall. Preferably all data is transmitted via https protocols.
In the architecture shown in FIG. 2, once the requests are received and pass through the initial firewall they are scanned by a bank of proving servers 48 to confirm that they are legitimate requests. For example, the submitted transaction specific identifiers 20 are checked against a list of known transaction specific identifiers. If there is no match (or another error is identified) a message 49 returns to the customer notifying the customer that the input data is invalid and to try again. If the submitted request passes the checks of the proving servers 48, the request is passed on to the data comparison engine 38.
The method of the invention continues by retrieving the customer's purchase data from the first database 22 and comparing the customer's data with competitor's pricing data from the second database 26. The retrieving and comparison is accomplished by the data comparison engine 38.
Alternatively, the request to compare prices can occur at the point of sale cash register 19. In this embodiment, the cash register 19 functions as the portal that accesses the system. The request to compare prices is initiated by the customer or is automatically initiated at the point of sale. As shown in FIG. 2, the purchase data generated by the point of sale cash register 19 is stored in a first electronic database 22. The data network that transfers the data to the first electronic database 22 can send the purchase data directly to the data comparison engine 38 or indirectly via the data network or indirectly via the data network that links the first database 22 with the data comparison engine 38.
The data comparison engine 38 is capable of retrieving the customer's purchase data from the first database 22, retrieving competitors' price data from the second database 26 (or receiving such data if a 3^rdparty database is used), comparing the customer's data with pricing data from the second database 26, and identifying any item purchased by the customer which was offered for sale at a lower price by at least one of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction.
The mechanics of the data comparison process can and very likely will vary from merchant to merchant and system to system based upon the hardware and software used in any particular merchant's IT system. For example, one merchant may choose to build the invention using a Microsoft based operating system. Other merchants may utilize a UNIX based operating system. Thus, the programs and commands that actually pull the data and make price comparisons are not critical to the description of the invention and are well within the skill of programmers that work in the retail area. The following price comparison discussion will focus more on the process and problems that are somewhat unique to the retail arena.
Upon receipt of the price comparison request from the customer, the data comparison engine 38 queries the first electronic database 22 to retrieve purchase data associated with the customer's purchase at the merchant. In preferred embodiments, the transaction specific identifier 20 is used to efficiently retrieve this information. The information retrieved includes at least one item specific characteristic (e.g., a UPC code) and the price of each item that the customer purchased.
Once the customer's purchase data is retrieved, the data comparison engine 38 queries the second electronic database 26 to retrieve at least one competitor's prices for the items purchased by the customer. The retrieval of the competitor's pricing data can be more difficult than the retrieval of the merchant's data.
For example, one purpose of the invention is to provide a customer with a “real time” price matching function. In other words, the price matching is preferably based on the prices offered by competitors on the date (and preferably at the time) of the customer's original purchase. Thus, the invention is unlike other price comparison/guarantee inventions such as the one discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,606,731 which provides a forward looking price matching function based on the merchant's own price fluctuations. (e.g., a merchant gives a customer a rebate if the merchant lowers the price on an item within a set period of time after the customer's purchase). Accordingly, and as mentioned previously, all of the gathered competitive price information in the second database 26 should be organized and searchable by date (and preferably by time).
In addition, the second electronic price database 26 should be searchable by numerous item-specific identifiers. For example, searching competitor's prices based on UPCs may provide a very efficient method for price comparison, assuming that the UPCs are truly uniform for the item at issue. As noted above, UPCs may or may not be uniform for certain products. Thus, in preferred embodiments of the invention the data contained in the second electronic database 26 is searchable and suitable for cross-reference by multiple identifiers such as product name, size, and manufacturer, among other item-specific characteristics.
The process of matching items stored in both databases may include utilizing a set of criteria in which all or only a subset of the criteria need be met before finalizing the comparative data set for price matching purposes. For example, the search engine may make a first attempt at item matching by comparing merchant UPC codes with competitor UPC codes and then confirming the match based on secondary data such as item name and size. If there is no UPC match then the search engine can run a secondary search based on the item's manufacturer, name, size, SKU, etc. (e.g., Heinz, ketchup, plastic squeeze bottle, 12 oz.). If the matching criteria are met (e.g., 3 of 4 or 5 of 6 identifiers match) the item's price is pulled from the second database 26 for price matching purposes. If the search engine does not locate a match for a particular item the search can continue but the customer is notified that the invention was unable to identify a competitor's price for that item. This may be a common occurrence due to the fact that many items (e.g., a hat having the local high school football team's logo) may be sold only at one merchant or location.
In addition, the second electronic database 26 should be searchable by geographic area. Pricing for identical items can vary based upon location due to transportation costs and other factors. Thus, the method and system according to the invention should be capable of sorting the price data in the second electronic database 26 based on geographic area (e.g., within 10 miles of the original purchase). In preferred embodiments of the invention geographic limitations form part of the criteria utilized by the search engine 38 to match prices.
At the completion of the search and if the appropriate matching criteria are met, the method of the invention continues by individually identifying items purchased by the customer which were offered for sale at a lower price by at least one of the merchant's competitors on the date of the customer's transaction and within a predetermined geographical area.
The difference between the prices paid by the customer at the merchant and any lower prices offered by one of the merchant's competitors is calculated. If the price match is run against more than one competitor and more than one competitor offers an item for a lower price, the lowest of the identified prices is used to calculate the price differential. The price differentials are calculated and totaled by a price calculation engine. The price calculation engine could comprise a separate server programmed to receive the price data from the data comparison engine 38 server. Alternatively, the price calculation engine could be a subroutine executed by the data comparison engine 38 server. In FIG. 2 the price calculation engine is conducted by the hardware and software that make up the data comparison engine 38.
An optional but preferred add-on to the method according to the invention is to calculate the item by item savings that the customer realized by shopping at the merchant instead of at the merchant's competitors. In other words, the invention also provides the customer with item by item price data for items where the merchant undersold the competition. Such data can be totaled and provided to the customer as the “total savings” achieved by shopping at the merchant instead of at competitors. This function of the invention provides substantial support for marketing efforts that are centered on claims that the merchant is “the low cost leader”. An example of this option is discussed below in relation to FIGS. 4 and 5.
For those items where the merchant did not offer the lowest price, the calculated total price differential for those items is sent to an award module that is capable of awarding the customer a credit that is equal to the calculated total price differential. This credit is redeemable when the customer makes a subsequent purchase at the merchant. Just as with the price calculation engine, the award module could comprise a separate server programmed to receive data from the price calculator engine and generate the credit. Alternatively, the award module could be a subroutine executed by the data comparison engine 38 server. The architecture of the merchant's on-line account system will influence how the credits are awarded to the customer and those skilled in the art are capable of designing the award module to best fit within the overall system architecture utilized by a particular merchant.
FIG. 2 illustrates one possible arrangement of the award module. In FIG. 2 the award module is conducted as a subroutine by the servers that run the data comparison engine 38. Assuming that an award is calculated and due to the customer, the award module notifies the customer via email 56 that the price matching process is complete and that the customer should login to his/her account. The email can contain additional information such as notification that a credit has been awarded, a direct link to the customer's online account, or other marketing material.
If a credit was awarded, the credit is electronically posted to the customer's account as an “e-card” 58 a or other form of redeemable credit. For embodiments where the price comparison is initiated at the point of sale 19, the customer can have the option of applying the credit at the point of sale as represented by line 58 b in FIG. 2.
FIGS. 3-5 illustrate an exemplary use of the invention as seen by the customer. FIG. 3 is a sample log-in page where the customer enters the required data including the transaction specific identifier 20 and initiates the request for price comparison. FIG. 4 is an alternative start page that could be viewed by a returning customer after the customer has logged into his/her online account. The start page shown in FIG. 4 provides a graphical history and running total of the “credits” accumulated by the customer. FIG. 4 also provides a “savings to date” entry which includes a running total of the price difference calculations for items where the merchant had the lower price as compared to its competitors.
FIG. 5 represents a possible webpage design for displaying the results of a particular price match request. A graphical representation of the customer's original receipt showing an item by item list of prices is presented and identified as element 48. Summary columns showing individual differences in price and total savings/credit are identified as elements 50 and 52, respectively. Also illustrated in FIG. 5 are optional components to the method and system such as awarding customers credits by sharing the merchant's price matching system with others via social media programs such as Facebook and Twitter, 54.
In preferred embodiments, the merchant provides additional links on the award results page that enable a customer to delve deeper into the price comparison process. For example, a “comparison details” link (not shown) could provide the customer access to a spreadsheet showing each competitor that was part of the price matching process and the prices for each item at each competitor. Any number of graphical representations can be added as well (e.g, line charts, pie charts, etc.) to enhance the price saving message that underlies the practice of the invention.
Turning now to another aspect of the invention, the invention allows a merchant to directly educate a competitor's customers regarding the merchant being “the low cost leader”. In this aspect of the invention, a competitor's customer (as opposed to the merchant's customer as in the price matching aspect of the invention) submits a copy of a receipt from a competitor to a merchant's price comparison system. The merchant's system compares the prices paid by the consumer at the competitor with the prices the consumer would have paid at the merchant. The consumer then receives a data sheet showing price differences between the merchant and the competitor on an item by item basis.
In the following detailed description for this aspect of the invention the term “first merchant” is synonymous with the term “competitor” and the term “second merchant” is synonymous with the merchant that practices this aspect of the invention. One embodiment of this aspect of the invention is a computer implemented system and method for providing price comparison data to a consumer. The method comprises several steps involving collecting price data, comparing price data and reporting results to the consumer via a portal similar to that used in the price matching aspect of the invention.
The price comparison method according to the invention is initiated by the consumer creating an image of a receipt from a first merchant (e.g., taking a picture with a mobile phone or scanning the receipt using a commercial scanning device) and uploading the image to the second merchant's website along with contact information from the consumer (e.g., email address) and any other information required by the practitioner of the invention (e.g., demographic data).
The system is designed to accept a plurality of image files such as jpegs and tiffs or any other image file type that is currently in use or may be developed. The images are uploaded to the system via a portal 20 such as those previously described. For purposes of the detailed description it is assumed that a consumer that utilizes the invention possesses the knowledge necessary to save an image taken by a portable device (e.g., a smartphone) and upload it to a webpage using standard software.
FIG. 6 illustrates a webpage that could serve as an entry portal to the method and system of the invention that provides a consumer with price comparison data. Social media portals or mobile apps may also serve as points of entry to this aspect of the invention.
As noted previously, is important to remember that the information found on receipts is not standardized across the retail industry. For example, the abbreviated descriptions (elements 18 in FIG. 1) can vary from merchant to merchant. Some merchants may place an item's UPC code on the receipt while others use a SKU number. However, in the practice of the invention it is preferred that the purchase data contained on the receipt contain (1) the date of the purchase, (2) the location of the purchase, (3) a price for at least one purchased item, and (4) at least one item specific characteristic for each purchased item (e.g., Elements 16, 18, and 24 of FIGS. 1A&B discussed previously).
FIGS. 7 and 8 further illustrate how a consumer initiates this aspect of the invention. After uploading the receipt 20, the consumer is provided a preview of the image to confirm upload. FIG. 8 is a webpage thanking the consumer for using the invention and notifies them that the price comparison process is underway and that they will receive their results in due course.
FIG. 9 provides a flow chart for the price comparison aspect of the invention. After the consumer initiates the process by uploading and submitting the receipt at the entry portal (box 1), the receipt image 20 and the consumer's contact information (e.g., email address) are sent to an intake module where the image is assigned a unique identification number and is date stamped (box 2). A data file is created that contains the receipt image and the unique identification number. This data file then flows through the rest of the process where additional data is added to the data file in a machine readable and searchable format.
The form of the data file is not critical to the practice of the invention. For example, attaching the image file to an Excel spreadsheet which is then transferred from point to point through the process is an acceptable method of practicing the invention. As with the other aspects of the invention any data transfer, especially those between the invention and the consumer, should use a secure protocol for privacy concerns. Similarly, in preferred embodiments the customer's contact information is not added to the image data file and remains in the intake module. The removal of the customer contact information is not necessary to practice the invention but is a preferred practice for general customer privacy reasons. This is especially true if any of the individual steps of the invention are performed by third-party contractors.
Box 3 of FIG. 9 represents one of several validation steps in the process. The term validation, as used herein, means that the data file undergoes an internal quality control check to make sure that the file, process, or data are functioning properly and suitable for further processing. For example, immediately after the image is uploaded it is checked to see if it is in a form that is supported by the system (e.g., a jpeg) and is capable of being opened and read. This validation step can be automated, done manually or some combination of the two. This step (along with the other steps) can be part of a system implemented solely by the merchant or it can be out sourced to third party vendors.
The next step in the process, represented by box 4 in FIG. 9, is to transcribe the purchase data contained in the receipt and organize it into a form that can be searched by a computer program. At this time, manual transcription of receipt data is preferred to improve the quality and accuracy of the data provided to the consumer. In most instances this will occur offshore to reduce costs.
Eventually, it is believed that optical characters recognition (OCR) will be used to scan the images of the receipts, transcribe them, and organize the data necessary to practice the invention. Currently OCR technology is not at the point where it can consistently and accurately recognize data that is printed on all retail receipts. This is due to several factors such as the poor print found on many receipts, consumers wrinkling receipts as they are placed in pants pockets, etc., and poor images.
The transcription step is followed by a quality control step represented by box 5 in FIG. 9. It should be noted that the activities the occur in boxes 4 and 5 can be combined in one step but are discussed separately here to better highlight the progression of the method according to the invention. Alternatively, the entire price matching aspect of the invention can be combined in one system and done in one “step.”
As the transcription process takes place various data points are checked for validity and compatibility with the remaining process steps. For example, if the date of the receipt is too old for a legitimate comparison, the data file is flagged for closer review later in the process. Similarly, if the price of an item appears disproportionately low (e.g., a HDTV for $1) the data file is flagged. If the price of an item or items is unreadable the data file is flagged. If the image was too poor for transcription the data file is flagged. The flagging criteria can be set by each entity that practices the invention.
Data files that are flagged are reviewed to determine the relative scope of the data file deficiencies. If there are too many deficiencies (e.g., multiple items not transcribed) or if there is a major deficiency (e.g., unable to identify store name or purchase date) the data file is removed from further processing. The data file with its unique identification number is returned to the intake module (box 2) where it is combined with the consumer's email address. The consumer then receives a message (via email or other electronic message) notifying the consumer that their request was terminated. The reason for termination can be added to the message sent to the consumer.
Box 6 represents the UPC matching step of the invention. As noted in the discussion of the price matching aspect of the invention, the data contained on retail receipts is not uniform across merchants. Thus, in many instances a straight transcription of the retail purchase data provides little indication regarding what the product actually was. For example, FIG. 1B lists “stain pen” as an item with a store specific SKU beside it. Is this a TIDE brand pen or a CLOROX brand pen? What size is the pen? Unless one has a database containing item and price data for the merchant in question it would be difficult to make an accurate price comparison with any other merchant just based on the receipt data.
Therefore, the price comparison aspect of the invention also utilizes competitor's pricing data contained in the second electronic database 26 discussed in the price matching aspect of the invention. After the receipt purchase data is transcribed and added to the data file, the data file is electronically transferred to a UPC matching module (box 6) which contains, is connected to, or has access to the second electronic database 26. The UPC matching module also contains a suitable CPU or other computerized hardware necessary to conduct machine implemented search and data comparison of the second electronic database 26.
The data in the data file is computer searchable (e.g., text entered into an Excel spreadsheet) and is compared to the data found in the second electronic database 26 to match the item or items printed on the first merchant's (competitor's) receipt to a UPC code. This matching process can occur using both automated and manual means. For example, if the receipt purchase data found in the data file contains the first merchant's name and a SKU, the UPC matching module, which is electronically searchable, executes the appropriate algorithm and pulls the UPC code associated with that merchant's SKU. If the SKU is not available an algorithm based on keywords can match UPC codes to item specific purchase data in much the same manner as the data comparison engine 38 utilized in the price matching aspect of the invention.
As with the price matching aspect of the invention, determining a “match” between item and UPC code can be based on a set of criteria chosen by the practitioner of the invention. If 3 of 4 or 4 of 5 criteria match (e.g., merchant name, item name, size, SKU, price, location), the item is matched to a UPC code which is added to the data file in a searchable format.
If the UPC matching module fails to match an item contained in the data file with a UPC code the data file is so noted. For example, the entry “no match found” is entered into the data file which is presented to the consumer if desired.
Alternatively, manual review of the data file and manual price matching can occur. Manual review and matching can be used randomly as a quality control measure for the automated searches or it can be used more frequently in an attempt to eliminate or reduce the number of “no match found” entries. For example, a human may be able to match a description and price contained in the purchase data with a picture of an item found on a sales circular and then match the sales circular to a UPC code.
Regardless of the method utilized to obtain UPC code data, at the end of the UPC matching module (box 6) the data file contains a list of UPC codes that are matched to one or more items contained on the first merchant's receipt on an item by item basis (“the first merchant UPC code list”). The data file, containing the first merchant UPC code list is then forwarded to a price matching module represented by box 7.
The price matching module is a computer operated search engine similar to the UPC matching module and the same CPUs and hardware that are used in the other searching/matching steps of the invention can run the price matching functions as well. Alternatively, the price matching function can run on separate servers, hardware, and software. In FIG. 9 the price matching module is identified as a separate box to highlight this aspect of the invention.
The price matching module uses a computerized system to match the first merchant UPC code list to UPC codes contained in the second merchant's pricing database. The algorithms utilized in the price matching module search the second merchant's pricing database to locate the second merchant's store that is closest to the first merchant's store where the items were purchased. Once the closest second merchant store is located the first merchant UPC code list is compared with the UPC codes sold at that store, preferably on the date of the consumer's purchase. If UPC matches are found, the second merchant's prices associated with those matched UPC codes are added to the data file.
The data in the data file is then organized and compiled in a price comparison module (box 8). As with the other modules, this module comprises a CPU, hardware, and software necessary to read data contained in the data file and perform the necessary mathematical calculations and data presentations. This module may be a stand alone module or it can be conducted by any of the computer hardware and software utilized by the other modules.
The price comparison module calculates the number of compared items and the item by item price difference between the first merchant's prices and the second merchant's prices for each item. Other mathematical calculations such total savings or percent savings, etc., desired by the practitioner merchant are performed and the results are added to the data file. The price comparison module also takes the price comparison data and places it in a form suitable for delivery to the consumer. For example, the price comparison data can be placed in a text file, Excel spreadsheet, html file, etc.
The price comparison data is then transferred to a delivery module (box 9) that matches the price comparison data and the unique identification number to the consumer's email address which was separated from the data file in the intake module. The delivery module notifies the consumer that the price comparison process is complete and that the consumer can view the results.
In preferred embodiments of the invention the consumer is directed to view the results by logging onto the second merchant's website to reinforce the psychological tie between the second merchant and lower prices. Alternatively, the results can be sent via any electronic means including but not limited to email and in any form desired by the practitioner.
FIG. 10 is an illustration of an email notifying the consumer that the price comparison results are ready and available for viewing by logging onto the merchant's website. FIG. 11 is an illustration of one possible presentation of the price comparison data organized and compiled in the price comparison module (box 8). In preferred embodiments the data set presented to the consumer comprises (a) a list of items purchased at the first merchant, (b) the price for items purchased at the first merchant, and (c) the price offered by the second merchant for at least one item purchased at the first merchant, among other data parts of information. The data shown in FIG. 11 is in a html format and contains social media links such as those that are standard in merchant's online marketing strategies.

Claims

That which is claimed is:

1. A computer implemented method for providing a merchant's customer with a redeemable credit based on a difference in purchase price, the method comprising the steps of:

Storing in a first electronic database data related to a customer's purchasing transaction at said merchant wherein said data includes the date of the transaction, the price of at least one item purchased in the transaction, and a transaction specific identifier that is printed on the receipt that is given to said customer;

Storing in a second electronic database date specific pricing data for items sold by at least one competitor of said merchant;

Receiving a request to compare the price paid by said customer at said merchant with the price of the identical item as advertised by one or more of merchant's competitors on the date of said customer's transaction;

Retrieving said customer's purchase data from said first database and comparing said customer's data with pricing data from said second database;

Identifying any item purchased by said customer which was offered for sale at a lower price by at least one of said merchant's competitors on the date of said customer's transaction;

Calculating the difference between the price paid by the customer at said merchant and the identified lowest price offered by one of said merchant's competitors; and

Awarding the customer a redeemable credit at said merchant for the calculated difference in price.

2. The method according to claim 1 further comprising the step of providing the customer with item by item cost comparison data along with notification of the award of redeemable credit.

3. A method according to claim 1 in which the step of receiving a request from said customer comprises having the customer submit a transaction specific identifier.

4. A method according to claim 3 wherein said system portal is selected from the group consisting of mobile applications, social media portals, the merchant's website and a point of sale portal

5. A method according to claim 1 wherein the step of storing in said first and second databases comprises identifying and storing at least one item specific characteristic for each item.

6. A method according to claim 5 wherein said at least one item specific characteristic is a uniform product code.

7. A method according to claim 5 wherein the step of comparing said customer's data from said first database with pricing data from said second database comprises the steps of

Searching said first database and identifying a specific characteristic for an item purchased by said customer at said merchant;

Searching said second database for an item having the same specific characteristic and identifying such an item; and

Comparing the price associated with said item in said first database with any prices associated with said item in the second database.

8. A method according to claim 1 wherein said redeemable credit is in the form of a credit made to an online account.

9. A method according to claim 1 wherein said redeemable credit is applied at the point of sale.

10. A computer implemented system for providing a merchant's customer with a redeemable credit based on a difference in purchase price, the system comprising:

A first electronic database that stores purchase data generated by a customer's purchasing transaction at said merchant wherein said data includes the date of the transaction, the price of at least one item purchased in the transaction, and a transaction specific identifier that is printed on the receipt that is given to said customer;

A second electronic database that stores date specific pricing data for items sold by at least one competitor of said merchant;

A portal for receiving a request from said customer to compare the price paid by said customer at said merchant with the price of the identical item as advertised by one or more of merchant's competitors on the date of said customer's transaction;

A data comparison engine that is capable of retrieving said customer's purchase data from said first database and comparing said customer's data with pricing data from said second database and identifying any item purchased by said customer which was offered for sale at a lower price by at least one of said merchant's competitors on the date of said customer's transaction;

A price calculation engine that is capable of calculating the difference between the price paid by the customer at said merchant and the identified lowest price offered by one of said merchant's competitors; and

An award module that is capable of automatically awarding the customer a credit that is redeemable at said merchant for the calculated difference in price.

11. The system according to claim 10 wherein the system provides the customer with item by item cost comparison data along with notification of the award of redeemable credit.

12. A system according to claim 10 in which the portal queries the customer for said transaction specific identifier.

13. A system according to claim 12 wherein said portal is selected from the group consisting of mobile applications, social media portals, the merchant's website and a point of sale portal.

14. A system according to claim 10 wherein said first and second databases associate at least one specific characteristic with each item.

15. A system according to claim 14 wherein said at least one item specific characteristic is a uniform product code.

16. A system according to claim 14 wherein said data comparison engine is further capable of

17. A system according to claim 10 wherein said redeemable credit is in the form of a credit made to an online account.

18. A system according to claim 10 wherein said redeemable credit is in the form of a credit that is applied at the point of sale.

19. A computer implemented method for providing price comparison data to a consumer, the method comprising the steps of:

Electronically receiving an image of a retail receipt issued by a first merchant, said receipt containing purchase data wherein the purchase data contained on said receipt comprises (1) the date of the purchase, (3) the location of the purchase, (3) a price for at least one purchased item, and (4) at least one item specific characteristic for each purchased item;

Transcribing at least one item specific characteristic for each item listed on said receipt;

Matching at least one transcribed item specific characteristic for each item to a UPC code based on a set of matching criteria thereby obtaining a first merchant UPC code list containing at least one item listed on said receipt;

Identifying a second merchant store location that is closest to the location of the purchase from the first merchant;

Searching said second merchant's pricing database, identifying UPC codes and prices for items sold at said second merchant store location that match the UPC codes on said first merchant UPC code list;

Presenting the consumer a data set comprising (a) a list of items purchased at said first merchant, (b) the price for items purchased at said first merchant, and (c) the price offered by the second merchant for at least one item purchased at said first merchant.

20. A computer system for providing price comparison data to a consumer, the system comprising:

An intake module for receiving an electronic image of a retail receipt issued by a first merchant, said receipt having purchase data for at least one item;

A transcription module for converting said purchase data to a machine readable format;

A UPC matching module for assigning a UPC code to said at least one item identified on said receipt:

A pricing database for a second merchant, said pricing database containing UPC and price data for items sold by said second merchant, said UPC and price data being searchable on a location specific basis;

A search engine with access to said second merchant pricing database that compares the UPC codes associated with the receipt with location specific UPC codes for the second merchant, identifies any matching UPC codes, and collects second merchant pricing data for the matched UPC codes; and

A data compilation module that presents the consumer a data set comprising (a) a list of items purchased at said first merchant, (b) the price for items purchased at said first merchant, and (c) the price offered by the second merchant for at least one item purchased at said first merchant.