These internet-connected fridge panels, developed by a Chicago startup called Cooler Screens Inc., frequently flickered, crashed or showed the wrong products. Every so often, they caught fire. But store managers were stuck with them. As part of a 10-year contract with Walgreens for a split of the ad revenue, Cooler Screens had installed 10,000 smart doors at hundreds of US locations like this one. It planned to install 35,000 more. By this point, Walgreens had already tried to pull out of the deal and get rid of the doors, blaming what it says was glitchy hardware and software. But Cooler Screens had temporarily prevented their removal the prior June by suing Walgreens for breach of contract, seeking $200 million and demanding its screens stay in place. Unreported until now is that over the ensuing months of legal battling, during which Walgreens had countersued for monetary damages, Cooler Screens Chief Executive Officer Arsen Avakian decided to try a different form of pushback.
Half the ad revenue of a freezer door can’t possibly be worth the cost of manufacturing a screen that size, never mind the engineering for cold and being swung around, never mind even the cost of electricity to display the ad.
The ad revenue is worthless compared to the facial recognition data it can generate. They’ve all got inward facing cameras, and most have outward facing ones. The company gets the absolute best marketing data they possibly can: demographic information, a face to match to other information, what products you looked for, how long you shopped around for a product, which products your ultimately bought
It’s an immensely invasive system but incredibly lucrative for the company. Millions of data points for millions of shoppers nationwide to sell off
I read the article, and yep it wasn’t. The screens cost thousands and generated several hundred dollars a year max while barely working. It’s why Walgreens dropped the deal.
What a name
Half the ad revenue of a freezer door can’t possibly be worth the cost of manufacturing a screen that size, never mind the engineering for cold and being swung around, never mind even the cost of electricity to display the ad.
The ad revenue is worthless compared to the facial recognition data it can generate. They’ve all got inward facing cameras, and most have outward facing ones. The company gets the absolute best marketing data they possibly can: demographic information, a face to match to other information, what products you looked for, how long you shopped around for a product, which products your ultimately bought
It’s an immensely invasive system but incredibly lucrative for the company. Millions of data points for millions of shoppers nationwide to sell off
I read the article, and yep it wasn’t. The screens cost thousands and generated several hundred dollars a year max while barely working. It’s why Walgreens dropped the deal.
I think they were implying they could already tell where it was going from that info alone.
Shit, just realized my tone came off as way more aggressive than intended. Made a quick edit. Curse you homophones!
Ohhh ok, I forgot about “read/reed” and “read/red”. Curse homophones indeed.