October 15, 2014
Sears faces outrage over sale of swastika ring
Note to all retailers: learn about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and never, ever, attempt to sell anything in stores or online that reminds people of the atrocities carried out under the Third Reich. Sears, through no doing of its own, has learned first hand the intense reactions that people have to such merchandise when a third-party seller offered a ring with a swastika design for sale on the retailer’s online marketplace.
Sears offered the following response to the negative reaction caused by the ring’s sale on its site. "All Marketplace Sellers must accept our seller agreement terms in order to sell their items on sears.com and part of that agreement includes an understanding that certain offensive items may not be listed. If a problem occurs, we take appropriate action. The ring has not been purchasable since this morning and we are in the process of completely removing the items from our site."
Sears action did not assuage many angered by ring’s appearance. The company was criticized for allowing the item to appear on its site in the first place and for being slow to remove it when its presence became known.
A Facebook user identified as Sharon Budman wrote, "It is irrelevant whether it’s a 1st party or 3rd party product that was being sold in the ‘Sears Marketplace’ space. The fact that the product ‘did not comply with guidelines’ is also irrelevant. Guidelines, like policies must be monitored for compliance, which should have been done prior to having allowed the item to be posted. Policy/guideline enforcement requires proactive and active oversight and monitoring. Passive or reactive oversight may be too late especially when your brand/name is at stake."
Another Facebook user, Tom Smith, wrote, "My question is — what measures will you put in place to ensure that offensive items such as this never get to the catalog again in the first place? And when will those measures be fully in place and effective?"
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was willing to give Sears the benefit of the doubt in this case.
"They took this situation very seriously and took immediate steps to remove the items from their web site," said Lonnie Nasatir, ADL Chicago regional director., in a statement. "We deeply appreciate their efforts and believe they did the right thing by removing this product immediately and making clear that they believed the third-party sellers had exercised very poor judgment."
Sears is not the only retailer to deal with a controversy of this type. The fast fashion chain Zara pulled a striped shirt with a yellow star that reminded people of the uniforms Jews were forced to wear in Nazi death camps.
Zara’s parent Inditex quickly apologized for the offense and said it had pulled the item from its site just a few hours after it went on sale. All remaining stock was destroyed.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Is it feasible that online marketplaces could vet all items offered through third-party sellers before allowing them to be posted for sale online? What measures would you take if you operated an online marketplace to keep mistakes from being made, as in the case of Sears?
Poll
Vetting each item that a third-party seller places on a marketplace website is almost impossible. The number of third parties and the frequency with which the items change would require a large number of “checkers” and certainly have a large negative impact on the profitability of a online marketplace.
Sears reacted quickly (although not quickly enough for some) and had the item removed. The next step they could have taken, but didn’t, is removing not only the item but the vendor. That would have sent a very clear message that Sears intends to strictly enforce a policy of not allowing certain offensive items.
If it’s impossible to verify the product, then don’t have the marketplace. If you recall, eBay had a serious counterfeit problem some years ago. Now, as far as I know, after an outcry from the brands, that doesn’t happen anymore.
Forgetting about the bizarre resurgence of Holocaust-themed product for a minute (which is, in itself disturbing), owning a marketplace brings responsibilities to go with the free money marketplace operators make. One is quality assurance, and this stuff was an epic fail. It never should have been allowed on the site.
Seems to me that no one is entitled to completely free money—including marketplaces.
I understand why the item is offensive. Sears has a right to decide what will be on the online marketplace. I don’t think its feasible for online marketplaces to be able to foresee every item that someone someplace might find offensive. That Nazi ring could have very well gone unnoticed. I just plugged the word “Nazi” in eBay and over 22,000 listings came up. Where’s the outrage? What might be offensive to some might be a piece of history to another. One time I was criticized for buying South African Krugerrands minted during the apartheid years. To me it was just gold. The outrage over Krugerrand ownership has faded and the coins are regularly traded everywhere.
This is where big data and top technology comes into play. Third-party seller data could be auto-analyzed very closely and items that are blatantly wrong for the site (like a CD of my guitar playing) or pornography would be noted, marked and the merchant would be updated.
The technology is there. Many online sellers use the big data element of their sites for other purposes. The high-speed processing is possible and more.
Selling large numbers of items online is new and it’s time to use new technology to address this problem.
It is the responsibility of ANY online marketplace to vet any and all items offered through third-party sellers. PERIOD. Over the years the various professionals on this RetailWire BrainTrust panel have provided invaluable insights and recommendations to improve the shopping experience for brands and retailers alike. Sears, Zara and any other online retailer has a responsibility to its brand, shareholders and customers to take on that responsibility and its consequences.
For Sears to deflect responsibility and claim that “All Marketplace Sellers must accept our seller agreement terms in order to sell their items on sears.com and part of that agreement includes an understanding that certain offensive items may not be listed” is simply lame. Its easy to create a link or process to sell ANYTHING online through a labyrinth of connections, servers and links. Being digital also means being smart and responsible. Passing the buck simply doesn’t cut it! Even a simple key word search of possible offensive material by an internal team would have caught “Nazi” and “swastika”! Shame on Sears. Someone was asleep at the wheel!
Yes, it is feasible to “vet” all items, but given the volume of items a retailer deals with, “mistakes will be made.” When I was in the business we had at any moment 500,000 SKUs in the store, and we turned the business almost three times a year. We vetted every item. We still had some egregious things happen. Your vetting is only as good as the person doing the vetting.
We recently had an issue with a client who altered our original design to such an extent that the resulting image was reflective of a symbol that was offensive to an ethnic minority for political reasons dating back to the 1960s.
When we discussed the issue in the office the employees younger than their mid 30s were perplexed as the symbol had no meaning for them. Their education and experiences either did not teach or stress the political issues of that era, and in their opinion the offended people “should just get over it.” They thought that it was so far in the past that the memory was irrelevant.
In another incident a Jewish friend’s son was making a delivery to an old house and was shocked to see the tile pattern in the foyer included a swastika design. Historically this symbol has been used by many cultures dating back thousands of years, including Greeks, India and the Celts. So before the Nazis appropriated the symbol it was seen as one of welcome and good luck. Perhaps the home’s builders had seen it in that light in the early 1900s.
My point being that you shouldn’t pillory Sears when in fact the people doing the oversight might just not be educated in the horrors of the holocaust and the symbols of Nazism.
Since we live in a time of heightened “political correctness,” it is unlikely that all potentially offensive merchandise can be thoroughly vetted or even agreed upon.
Few symbols are as clearly offensive as the swastika and public outcry is warranted. However, who will be the arbiter of what is offensive in general? Just this morning I read an article about Auburn University Women’s Studies students claiming that the cross is a misogynistic symbol. Should all retailers than stop selling crosses?
Each retailer will need to be sensitive to their own customers’ sensibilities.
Sears’ statement puts a twist on the problem that makes it read like it is the responsibility of the third party. Baloney! It is their responsibility as the owner of the online service who must insure the items that appear meet the criteria established. Who is Sears trying to kid? They are the most responsible party and should accept the responsibility.
Although vetting every product in a marketplace is next to impossible, I believe there are ways to come at it another way.
Anyone familiar with the coveted Master’s tickets? They can only be sold to individuals and if anyone using that person’s ticket is sighted as out of order during the event itself, will result in having that individual’s tickets revoked hence forward. NO ONE acts up at the Masters!!!
Ok, so how does this apply? Put it in the contract that any violation of policy will result in instant removal from the marketplace and revoked license to sell hence forth…something like that.
…For my 2 cents.
By definition, a marketplace is a bit more freewheeling. This is not Sears, but 3rd party sellers, brought to you by Sears. What if a Sears store allowed part of its parking lot to be used for an art fair, and one of the artists had a painting that featured, among other elements, an offensive symbol? Would any consumer brandish that Sears was promoting hateful imagery?
Yes, big data and analytics make it easier to police, but there are so many cases where the best intention results in unwarranted censorship. Think of so many organizations that have tried to police “breast” and wound up inadvertently classifying data on breast cancer as pornography. You could easily see it happening here.
The only solution is what other commenters here have offered: ban the seller. There should be an appeals process in such cases, where a seller can be put on probation after such an incident results in a banning and resolution, with a “no third strike” policy. Offer a rating system to let consumers rate a seller, with a minimum rating required to be live. In that way, all parties are satisfied.
There’re really two issues here. One is whether or not it’s possible to vet every item sold. In theory, probably yes, but as Jan correctly notes, “mistakes will be made.” So in Sears’ defense—and how often do we use that phrase?—we really need to know more about their vetting process if they’re to be singled out for opprobrium. The second is whether or not it’s possible to anticipate what’s “inappropriate.” Nazi rings as a fashion item? Easy call. As an historical item? Less clear. “Hammer and sickle” rings: who’s to say?
If you don’t want to offer offensive products for sale then you have to figure out how to avoid it. Online marketing has many instances of offensive and annoying practices. The path of least resistance is to let it go and deal with controversy as it arises. It’s just more cost effective to allow bad things to happen as long as those happenings don’t eat into the profit margin.
For those mal-intended third party sellers, it’s just a question of finding the opportunity that is most productive for their products. To use the challenge of vetting items as an excuse for the appearance of offensive products encourages their proliferation.
What would Sears do if their logo was integrated into the design of the swastika ring? How would their long term strategy for vetting be affected? If Sears and other companies want to avoid that which is offensive, malicious and supportive of evil intentions then they will make it happen.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has taken the broader view and praised Sears for their prompt actions in pulling this garbage from their 3rd Party site.
With Taobao, Alibaba’s China version of Amazon, taking steps to enter the U.S. and other world markets, you will see added 3rd Party sites springing up. Not likely that all items can be checked ahead of time on these platforms. It comes down to “Let the buyer beware.” A key reason that Taobao created the TMall was to develop a platform to guarantee shoppers that they are receiving the authentic merchandise.
Merchants like Sears, perhaps especially Sears due to their losing trust and confidence of the American consumer, need to be diligent in acting promptly and decisively when situations like this arise.
The loyalty of consumers only flows when deep trust is established.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Vetting each item that a third-party seller places on a marketplace website is almost impossible. The number of third parties and the frequency with which the items change would require a large number of “checkers” and certainly have a large negative impact on the profitability of a online marketplace.
Sears reacted quickly (although not quickly enough for some) and had the item removed. The next step they could have taken, but didn’t, is removing not only the item but the vendor. That would have sent a very clear message that Sears intends to strictly enforce a policy of not allowing certain offensive items.
If it’s impossible to verify the product, then don’t have the marketplace. If you recall, eBay had a serious counterfeit problem some years ago. Now, as far as I know, after an outcry from the brands, that doesn’t happen anymore.
Forgetting about the bizarre resurgence of Holocaust-themed product for a minute (which is, in itself disturbing), owning a marketplace brings responsibilities to go with the free money marketplace operators make. One is quality assurance, and this stuff was an epic fail. It never should have been allowed on the site.
Seems to me that no one is entitled to completely free money—including marketplaces.
I understand why the item is offensive. Sears has a right to decide what will be on the online marketplace. I don’t think its feasible for online marketplaces to be able to foresee every item that someone someplace might find offensive. That Nazi ring could have very well gone unnoticed. I just plugged the word “Nazi” in eBay and over 22,000 listings came up. Where’s the outrage? What might be offensive to some might be a piece of history to another. One time I was criticized for buying South African Krugerrands minted during the apartheid years. To me it was just gold. The outrage over Krugerrand ownership has faded and the coins are regularly traded everywhere.
This is where big data and top technology comes into play. Third-party seller data could be auto-analyzed very closely and items that are blatantly wrong for the site (like a CD of my guitar playing) or pornography would be noted, marked and the merchant would be updated.
The technology is there. Many online sellers use the big data element of their sites for other purposes. The high-speed processing is possible and more.
Selling large numbers of items online is new and it’s time to use new technology to address this problem.
It is the responsibility of ANY online marketplace to vet any and all items offered through third-party sellers. PERIOD. Over the years the various professionals on this RetailWire BrainTrust panel have provided invaluable insights and recommendations to improve the shopping experience for brands and retailers alike. Sears, Zara and any other online retailer has a responsibility to its brand, shareholders and customers to take on that responsibility and its consequences.
For Sears to deflect responsibility and claim that “All Marketplace Sellers must accept our seller agreement terms in order to sell their items on sears.com and part of that agreement includes an understanding that certain offensive items may not be listed” is simply lame. Its easy to create a link or process to sell ANYTHING online through a labyrinth of connections, servers and links. Being digital also means being smart and responsible. Passing the buck simply doesn’t cut it! Even a simple key word search of possible offensive material by an internal team would have caught “Nazi” and “swastika”! Shame on Sears. Someone was asleep at the wheel!
Yes, it is feasible to “vet” all items, but given the volume of items a retailer deals with, “mistakes will be made.” When I was in the business we had at any moment 500,000 SKUs in the store, and we turned the business almost three times a year. We vetted every item. We still had some egregious things happen. Your vetting is only as good as the person doing the vetting.
We recently had an issue with a client who altered our original design to such an extent that the resulting image was reflective of a symbol that was offensive to an ethnic minority for political reasons dating back to the 1960s.
When we discussed the issue in the office the employees younger than their mid 30s were perplexed as the symbol had no meaning for them. Their education and experiences either did not teach or stress the political issues of that era, and in their opinion the offended people “should just get over it.” They thought that it was so far in the past that the memory was irrelevant.
In another incident a Jewish friend’s son was making a delivery to an old house and was shocked to see the tile pattern in the foyer included a swastika design. Historically this symbol has been used by many cultures dating back thousands of years, including Greeks, India and the Celts. So before the Nazis appropriated the symbol it was seen as one of welcome and good luck. Perhaps the home’s builders had seen it in that light in the early 1900s.
My point being that you shouldn’t pillory Sears when in fact the people doing the oversight might just not be educated in the horrors of the holocaust and the symbols of Nazism.
Since we live in a time of heightened “political correctness,” it is unlikely that all potentially offensive merchandise can be thoroughly vetted or even agreed upon.
Few symbols are as clearly offensive as the swastika and public outcry is warranted. However, who will be the arbiter of what is offensive in general? Just this morning I read an article about Auburn University Women’s Studies students claiming that the cross is a misogynistic symbol. Should all retailers than stop selling crosses?
Each retailer will need to be sensitive to their own customers’ sensibilities.
Sears’ statement puts a twist on the problem that makes it read like it is the responsibility of the third party. Baloney! It is their responsibility as the owner of the online service who must insure the items that appear meet the criteria established. Who is Sears trying to kid? They are the most responsible party and should accept the responsibility.
Although vetting every product in a marketplace is next to impossible, I believe there are ways to come at it another way.
Anyone familiar with the coveted Master’s tickets? They can only be sold to individuals and if anyone using that person’s ticket is sighted as out of order during the event itself, will result in having that individual’s tickets revoked hence forward. NO ONE acts up at the Masters!!!
Ok, so how does this apply? Put it in the contract that any violation of policy will result in instant removal from the marketplace and revoked license to sell hence forth…something like that.
…For my 2 cents.
By definition, a marketplace is a bit more freewheeling. This is not Sears, but 3rd party sellers, brought to you by Sears. What if a Sears store allowed part of its parking lot to be used for an art fair, and one of the artists had a painting that featured, among other elements, an offensive symbol? Would any consumer brandish that Sears was promoting hateful imagery?
Yes, big data and analytics make it easier to police, but there are so many cases where the best intention results in unwarranted censorship. Think of so many organizations that have tried to police “breast” and wound up inadvertently classifying data on breast cancer as pornography. You could easily see it happening here.
The only solution is what other commenters here have offered: ban the seller. There should be an appeals process in such cases, where a seller can be put on probation after such an incident results in a banning and resolution, with a “no third strike” policy. Offer a rating system to let consumers rate a seller, with a minimum rating required to be live. In that way, all parties are satisfied.
There’re really two issues here. One is whether or not it’s possible to vet every item sold. In theory, probably yes, but as Jan correctly notes, “mistakes will be made.” So in Sears’ defense—and how often do we use that phrase?—we really need to know more about their vetting process if they’re to be singled out for opprobrium. The second is whether or not it’s possible to anticipate what’s “inappropriate.” Nazi rings as a fashion item? Easy call. As an historical item? Less clear. “Hammer and sickle” rings: who’s to say?
If you don’t want to offer offensive products for sale then you have to figure out how to avoid it. Online marketing has many instances of offensive and annoying practices. The path of least resistance is to let it go and deal with controversy as it arises. It’s just more cost effective to allow bad things to happen as long as those happenings don’t eat into the profit margin.
For those mal-intended third party sellers, it’s just a question of finding the opportunity that is most productive for their products. To use the challenge of vetting items as an excuse for the appearance of offensive products encourages their proliferation.
What would Sears do if their logo was integrated into the design of the swastika ring? How would their long term strategy for vetting be affected? If Sears and other companies want to avoid that which is offensive, malicious and supportive of evil intentions then they will make it happen.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has taken the broader view and praised Sears for their prompt actions in pulling this garbage from their 3rd Party site.
With Taobao, Alibaba’s China version of Amazon, taking steps to enter the U.S. and other world markets, you will see added 3rd Party sites springing up. Not likely that all items can be checked ahead of time on these platforms. It comes down to “Let the buyer beware.” A key reason that Taobao created the TMall was to develop a platform to guarantee shoppers that they are receiving the authentic merchandise.
Merchants like Sears, perhaps especially Sears due to their losing trust and confidence of the American consumer, need to be diligent in acting promptly and decisively when situations like this arise.
The loyalty of consumers only flows when deep trust is established.