Digital Offers Task Force

Joerg's presentation

<Ian> ltoth: Things looked pretty good. Any questions or comments?

<Ian> jheuer: one question is whether to include new topic

<Ian> I propose to add a sentence to "controls on redemption":

<Ian> How will information about controls be communicated to users (since no longer printed on coupons)?

<Ian> And thus not adding a new discussion topic

+1

<Ian> PROPOSED:

<Ian> Is anything new required for the Web to ensure that constraints can be communicated to users (since no longer printed on coupons)?

+1

<dezell> +1

<Ian> +1

<Ian> ltoth: Should we put list of people lined up to support us?

<jheuer> Ian already mentioned the problem - I can add that over the weekend

Yes, we should not name them if we haven't asked permission yet.

<Ian> IJ: Let's not mention orgs by name as "having committed to do something"

<Ian> dezell: We are allocating extra time at the FTF meeting for this topic

<Ian> IJ summary of changes to deck he's hearing:

<Ian> 1) Remove "proposed discussion topic" from Joerg

<Ian> 2) Update "Controls on distribution" slide since sentence added

<Ian> ...indeed probably need to refresh the content if we make other changes

<Ian> 3) See email for a proposed new slide on "Outreach pre-TPAC"

<Ian> IJ: Feel free to send the deck to the public list and I'll link from the agenda

<Ian> jheuer: Note that I adjusted expression of topics to shorten them

<Ian> IJ: I suggest a short note in the deck to say "Content adapted from wiki"

Simon's comments

Ian: One of the responses involved some interesting questions.
... Their own personal responses reading the wiki, trying to see if any of those result in changes to the wiki.

ltoth: Simon Stock, Executive Director of IFSF

Ian: Simons says: Coupons - does this mean all forms of offers, ...
... I don't think additional changes are necessary - do we want to add discounts to top of wiki?

<Ian> IJ: Proposed to add "discounts" to the top of the wiki

ltoth: B1G1 is Buy One Get One Free

jheuer: Is this a technical question?

Ian: I think the answer is that this is in scope of discussion.
... I don't see why we wouldn't talk about discounts.

<Ian> jack ed

manu: +1, we should be able to talk about discounts.

<Ian> jack ed

<Ian> IJ: I think in any case it's in scope for the CG

Ed: Getting the discount at the point of sale, it's different slightly, so discussion should be on the table.

Ian: We should capture how people are thinking about these things, these are not synonyms for the same thing.
... Next one, Simon says: Physical coupons ... fulfilled over the Web.
... I think that statement is encompassed by our work. We talk about ... hmm, debating. To the extent that we build this stuff into mobile applications. We're W3C, so we don't deal with paper, but getting from paper to digital - suggesting no change for this.
... Simon said: THere is an additional group of topics that should deal with themes - how the retailer has to handle offers in their site systems and their accounting.
... I question the scope of that one, if it's an internal processing thing, it may not be about interoperability - at this time, I would not add a new category, but we should flesh out whether we should have extra internal things wrt. interoperability.

<Ian> jack ed

Ian: Propose no change here.

Ed: I agree with Simon's observation, it's a reality on a retailer side.
... How I want a coupon to act might be on the front-end of it. Is it an expensed coupon? It goes to the question of settlement.

Ian: We will return to that in the context of CG discussion.
... Simon says: Settlement could be in realtime or batch process.
... We didn't say anything about batch because the goal is to move to realtime funding. Batch may be the old way? Or do we mention batch?

ltoth: That's an open issue from Ed's comments. I don't think we resolved it. Ed, did you want to make a suggestion on that?

Ed: Yes, one of my todos is to go back and add something into ... realtime and batch, make those changes. We have that covered, it's just not in there yet.

Ian: If batch processing is not a thing that people are working hard on these days, if more people are focused on realtime, given limited resources, people may want to focus on realtime.
... Is that a place where people want to invest.

ltoth: I don't think we know yet
... It's important that we don't lose track of it.

Ian: My proposal is to add a note near realtime funding, also recognize batch processing will continue to play a role in the ecosystem and can be discussed in the context of this topic.
... I'm adding these now
... After this call, we'll freeze the page for TPAC>

<Ian> ** Note: We also recognize batch processing will continue to play a role in the ecosystem and can be discussed in the context of this topic.

Ed: I'm not sure the entire ecosystem agrees with realtime processing, some may want to stay w/ batch. Batch needs to remain in the discussions.

Ian: Detailed consideration of the topic, how do we decentralize lookup.
... Someone may have to have a database, yep, no change to the wiki.
... In the case where the database is not online, there will be a need to send data back to database owner that coupon has been used and is no longer valid. Offline use as a keyword.
... How will offline use be managed?
... Offline use is a fine mobile topic
... Simon says: Beacon technology may be one way to tell customers about what's available.
... We say via a QRCode or a barcode at the point of sale. e.g. via QRCode, barcode, NFC, bluetooth at point of sale.

ltoth: THat's getting into the gory details,

Ian: We should say beacon not bluetooth
... I'm contemplating adding other technologies into that parenthetical.

ltoth: He's saying beacons or geofencing are one way to tell customers about an offer. A beacon is how an offer may be delivered. You still have to scan the coupon.

Ian: Without requiring software installation, via beacon technology - how will information reach the users device.

ltoth: It belongs under distribution
... We purposely didn't want to call out technologies.

<jheuer> +1 to not naming technologies, but categories like proximity, geo-fencing

+1

<Ian> jack ed

Ian: SImon says: A common app that is one that is not held by common retailer/marketer - we call common app as "the browser" that's our target in general. We don't really focus on software other than that... we want software to do things.

<Ian> jack ed

Ian: What we're interested in is software that can do things because of standards.

<Ian> jack ed

Ed: Companies like Groupon and Retailmenot, where many offers from different retailers end up - don't know if that's what he meant?

Ian: I read it as - someone should be able to distribute something that works cross retailer.
... I think that we should enable that - that's the kind of cross-retailer interoperability that we'd like.

Ed: That's fair.

Ian: Next one: Retailers may also have constraints on who they could sell goods to that could impact offers - this may override the coupon providers constraint. We have a couple of constraint based points.
... We currently say that some merchants may want to constraint. He's saying retailers also want to constraint. I think we've covered that.

Ed: Controls of distribution covers all of this

jheuer: We need to figure out who states rules that apply, because we could erode transparency as a result.
... The issuer needs to know that there are exceptions and they need to state that.

Ian: PCI requirements don't allow public connection to Internet at PoS.
... This one, if I look for keyword "security" it doesn't show up in the wiki.
... I wouldn't add a new bullet point - at the top, under discussion topics, we also anticipate covering familiar W3C topics.

ltoth: We also need to consider retailers enrolement process.
... That may be out of scope

Ed: I'm not sure what enrollement process means

ltoth: WHen a customer comes in a store...
... We talk about enrollement in terms of loyalty, this steps outside - it could include loyalty

Ed: I may have not heard Simons comment correctly. I heard the retailer would have to enroll.

ltoth: He may have. The retailer enrolling customers into their programs.
... I don't think we need to make changes on the things we're unclear of.
... We're trying to put a proposal forward.

ed: I do think the security issue, as raised, may have some validity. If there is a general commnent that you used, maybe that's appropriate.

<Ian> jack ed

<Ian> manu: We do want to have standard boilerplate re: horizontals. We may want to call out some specifics as well (e.g., PCI)

jheuer: Additions I proposed last week - copying stuff, making sure they're real - several security aspects. We shouldnt' freeze them now into the discussion, let's have a hint on security behing covered, but not cover them now.

Ian: Concrete proposal - add new section to wiki - other topics to track in CG - Security, Privacy, PCI issues, merchant internal processes which might benefit from increased interoperability, etc.
... Catch phrases so that we don't forget, just for later discussion

+1

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/DigitalOffers2016#Other_Topics_To_Track_in_the_CG

Ian: We should add to that as we think of things.
... WIth that - I didn't mention enrollement, not going to put that in.
... Capturing coupon value - getting offers to user, think that's captured there.

ltoth: Under funding sources, do we need to add "amount"?

Ian: Merchants need to be able to distinguish...

ltoth: Funding sources for individual offers

Ian: Would there be a charge-back process - detailed topic, happy to mention chargeback in the other topics.

<Ian> Manu: Is chargeback a thing for coupons?

Ian: What about fraud management?
... Is realtime funding possible and the cost of processing high?
... No change, we need to get to the discussion.
... What proof will marketers require?
... What proofs are required, we can include that as a question.
... I'm proposing adding something to controls under redemption - verify that an offer is legitimate or it was processed as expected.

Ed: It's covered

Ian: SHould we call it out in bullets above?

<Ian> jack ed

Ed: I see.

jheuer: Does verification imply feedback to user?

Ian: We don't know yet
... Focused on business question, not user experience or implementation details.
... I've updated the wiki, no more edits planned.

Any other outreach updates?

Ian: I did a couple of updates in outreach list today summarizing responses - anyone have any updates?

ltoth: I didn't get any emails out.

Ian: Maybe send a variation - w/o deadline.

<Ian> IJ: Please still try but without the deadline

<jheuer> same for me, sorry!

Ed: I sent all mine out

(to send stuff out to )

Ian: Responses have been positive so far.