CVS - Absolutely Do Not Do Business With Us Online

[bhartzer]

As you probably know, I'm pretty outspoken when it comes to web site marketing and web site stupidity. I just came across something that absolutely positively takes the cake.

My wife found that CVS (as in the CVS Pharmacy) carries the Enfamil Lipil with Iron nursette bottles. As you may or may not know, we just had our second child last week. We just love the Enfamil Lipil with Iron nursette bottles because all you have to do is open one up and it's ready to go. Our hospital, Baylor Hospital in Dallas, provided us with them for the first few days while we were staying in the hospital.

So, my wife pings me and tells me that CVS carries them. So, I do some searches and check out some prices and then go on over to CVS.com after a Froogle search (they have the best price according to Froogle). Guess what? The page starts to load and then I get redirected (I think it's a JavaScript redirect but I haven't checked) to an error page telling me that I cannot view their site unless I upgrade.

I've copied what it says below, but I'm just amazed that I was redirected to it. CVS does not want to do business with me online if I'm not using their preferred web browser of choice. I've got news for you:

That's absolutely the most ridiculous, ludicrous, online policy that I've ever run across since I've been doing web site marketing since 1996. And oh yeah, I'm actually using the latest Internet Explorer browser. I also checked it in Opera: same thing.

So, CVS, you don't want me spending hundreds of dollars on your site today and you don't want me to even be able to VIEW your web site? Uh, why don't your web designers consider redirecting visitors to a more "stripped down" version of your site that actually works rather than stopping people entirely from even viewing your site.

All I can say is, WOW. CVS is saying to me, "absolutely positively do not do business with us if you're using Internet Explorer 7 or the Opera web browser". Anyway, here's the text of the page you get when you go to their site using IE7. I also checked the site with the Opera web browser and you're not allowed to do business with them online if you're using Opera, as well.

Welcome to CVS.com

CVS/pharmacy is the leading pharmacy and drug store in the United States, with over 5400 retail stores. CVS.com offers prescription drugs for in-store pickup or home delivery, home medical supplies, CVS store items and online exclusives.

You have landed on this page, because we do not currently support your web browser and/or browser version.

Our site currently supports the majority of Mozilla-based and Internet Explorer browsers on Windows and Macintosh systems. However, we do not support Opera, Beta versions, or recent releases of some browsers. We hope to remedy this in the near future.

CVS.com is committed to your satisfaction, and we apologize for any inconvenience that this situation may have caused. Your interest in our site is appreciated.

If you have any questions or require additional assistance please contact us by email at customercare@cvs.com.

Thank you for visiting!

[bhartzer]

So, when it is is appropriate to turn someone away and tell them to go away from your web site if they're not complying with your site's requirements?

I would think that you should never ever do this, especially if you're an ecommerce site.

[inovat]

I would have to say that only in the most severe cases (example: website does not display anything at all) should you refuse someone access. I have seen several instances where a site recommends that you upgrade your browser but never block you from it.

[southplatte]

I see their point, they may have a bunch of CSS hacks or other "tricks" to get the site to work with current mainstream browsers, but it gets broke in newer or other browsers such as Opera.

What is worse, telling the customer your site won't work, or just letting them cruise on in and fight and finaggle with it attempting to do something constructive?

I would rather be told, "Hey, you can't view this because of this...." rather than spend 5-10-15+ minutes navigating it and having the checkout fail or some other anomaly happen that angers me worse than them being up front and honest about it.

I think far too often the push of 100% availability to 90% of the target audience is just too unrealistic, and hey, even the most large and demanding sites have trouble and issues at maintenance at times. That's our imperfect world.

[wige]

I realize it is silly to completely block users with certain browsers, however I can concieve of one possible reason for the restriction: Litigation or Privacy Laws: There may have been a court settlement or they may be subject to a local or regional privacy law that says they can not allow visitors using beta versions of web browsers or browsers that don't support a certain level of encryption because their servers contain or transmit prescription and personal health information.

It is possible that they are using this block in response to an overzealous interpretation of a legal decision or privacy issue, or to cover for some security flaw. Have you tried contacting CVS and see what reason they give for the restriction?

CVS is not the only company that does this by the way. When I was beta testing Windows Vista with IE7, I did come across the occassional site that blocked the "unrecognized" or "incompatable" browser.

[spherica]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

That's absolutely the most ridiculous, ludicrous, online policy that I've ever run across since I've been doing web site marketing since 1996. And oh yeah, I'm actually using the latest Internet Explorer browser. I also checked it in Opera: same thing.

You could drive over and ignore the website completely... course that means you need to upgrade you gas!

That's absolutely the most ridiculous, ludicrous, offline policy I ever heard!

Can't win for losing!!!! :-)

[DrTandem1]

It's probably just a coding error. Maybe when the site was designed, IE7 didn't exist. So, it's possible it will work, but they just neglected to update their browser detection script. Just a thought.

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

As you probably know, I'm pretty outspoken when it comes to web site marketing and web site stupidity. I just came across something that absolutely positively takes the cake.

My wife found that CVS (as in the CVS Pharmacy) carries the Enfamil Lipil with Iron nursette bottles. As you may or may not know, we just had our second child last week. We just love the Enfamil Lipil with Iron nursette bottles because all you have to do is open one up and it's ready to go. Our hospital, Baylor Hospital in Dallas, provided us with them for the first few days while we were staying in the hospital.

So, my wife pings me and tells me that CVS carries them. So, I do some searches and check out some prices and then go on over to CVS.com after a Froogle search (they have the best price according to Froogle). Guess what? The page starts to load and then I get redirected (I think it's a JavaScript redirect but I haven't checked) to an error page telling me that I cannot view their site unless I upgrade.

I've copied what it says below, but I'm just amazed that I was redirected to it. CVS does not want to do business with me online if I'm not using their preferred web browser of choice. I've got news for you:

That's absolutely the most ridiculous, ludicrous, online policy that I've ever run across since I've been doing web site marketing since 1996. And oh yeah, I'm actually using the latest Internet Explorer browser. I also checked it in Opera: same thing.

So, CVS, you don't want me spending hundreds of dollars on your site today and you don't want me to even be able to VIEW your web site? Uh, why don't your web designers consider redirecting visitors to a more "stripped down" version of your site that actually works rather than stopping people entirely from even viewing your site.

All I can say is, WOW. CVS is saying to me, "absolutely positively do not do business with us if you're using Internet Explorer 7 or the Opera web browser". Anyway, here's the text of the page you get when you go to their site using IE7. I also checked the site with the Opera web browser and you're not allowed to do business with them online if you're using Opera, as well.

I could be that their customer or visitor tracking system (cookies or whatever) wont work with the later browser so they cant see who you are or a similar reason. must be loosing a lot of business.
www.ssrichardmontgomery.com

[jazzmatazz2005]

well i went to the site and before i was redirected i got a chance to see a glimps of their home page and i didn't look right. Things were all over the place.

[bhartzer]

You're right, it could be a coding error or even a case like the fact that the site isn't as secure with one particular browser. In this case, though, they have decided to tell us that if you're using the Opera web browser or IE7 beta then you're not allowed to do business with them.

There are options, though. They can serve up a version of the site that will be acceptable to all web browsers if you're not using something acceptable.

Personally, though, I just don't understand the mentality of telling a customer to go away and not even let someone view the site. That's just a horrible customer service attitude, in my opinion. In the meantime, I've just browsed on over to their competitor, Wal-greens or Wal-mart to do business.

From what I gather, this is probably a decision that's been made by the web developer(s)/web designer(s) of the site. I would just bet that if the CEO of CVS knew that they were telling customers to go away he/she would be horrified.

Do they realize just how many people use Opera and/or the latest IE web browser? It's a lot more than we think...

And oh yeah, in the offline world if this corporation had someone standing at the door of each one of their 5400+ stores telling certain customers that they could come in and others that they cannot come in there would be a lawsuit--and it would be considered discrimination. (Yes, I know it's different--but is it really?)

[iwstats]

The problem with the cvs.com website is that they are setting illegal cookies on visitors. New browsers like Opera9 and IE7 reject cookies that don't correspond to the website you are visiting. Firefox 1.5.0.4 works fine on the site.

How can "CVS/pharmacy the leading pharmacy and drug store in the United States, with over 5400 retail stores", be so illiterate in e-marketing. They are loosing sales and customers and don't even know it. Learn the new Internet business models or expect to perish.

[incrediblehelp]

It is like saying:

"Please do not even try to shop at my local store if you show in a foreign car"

So dumb.

Of course like Tandem said it is probably just a coding error. Amazing that these large online e-tailers still **** up like this.

[bj]

It is discrimination of a sort. And Target is getting sued bigtime for discrimination because their website is not accessible to blind people.

If CVS doesn't smarten up some shyst . . . um I mean fine upstanding member of the legal community will jump on this and there will be a class action suit against CVS (with 10,000 people each getting fifty bucks in settlement and the attorney buying a beach house in Belize. But that's a different discussion ;-)

[ron angel]

Originally Posted by bj

It is discrimination of a sort. And Target is getting sued bigtime for discrimination because their website is not accessible to blind people.

If CVS doesn't smarten up some shyst . . . um I mean fine upstanding member of the legal community will jump on this and there will be a class action suit against CVS (with 10,000 people each getting fifty bucks in settlement and the attorney buying a beach house in Belize. But that's a different discussion ;-)

How can somebody sue cvs Its their site they make the entry rules. If a nightclub says you must wear a tie to get in no tie no entry. same with this you can only enter with the browsers cvs allow. The only
people to lose are cvs.Any person is free to accept the rule and enter or go elseware.No discrimination here.
www.ssrichardmontgomery.com

[Orion]

why in the heck would anyone build an e-commerce site that excludes ANYONE.

Hey if there's some really cutting edge funky feature you want to have that only works in some browsers then detect those browsers and add that for them.

Number one rule in sales (marketing)... SERVE THE MASSES... Never exclude anyone.

[southplatte]

I agree with Ron Angel - The whole discrimination thing is like everything else - way way way too far out of hand, and has been for some time.

Sure, CVS could have an entire version of their web site, just for IE7, one just for Opera. But several things come to mind:

1)They are probably using a custom programmed system that interacts with their ERP/CRM/Financial/Shipping/Reciving/Supplier/Vendor systems, and at a cost of severa million already, it is better to lose a hand full of customers at a cost of several hundred thousand than to pay a team of IT professionals to recode so that way that last .3% of visitors can view the site.

2) It is their web site, they can do with it what they want, and there is not much anyone can do about it, unless it puposely discriminates, which by blocking certain "unstable, beta" systems they are protecting their site from possible "undiscovered" hacks in those systems that may exploit one line of the million or more that make up their entire web system that does what is mentioned in point 1).

3) Who here has ever had experience in a true "corporate" environment, that is multinational, multiplatform, multi-product oriented, with thousands of venders, millions of customers and a team of IT members collaborating on the web site, the connectivity code for that web site, and all the logistics invovled with that? Trust me, from my personal and current experience, it is not something you just make another version for over night, for less than 1% of your "potential" visitors.

I say it is not discrimination of any sort, it is a bug due to some coding that was not IE7 friendly, they are probably working on it, but with that size, it's not like a SMB web site of 10-20-30 pages to update, it may require an update to several massively intense software systems that publish product information to the web in a certain way, and maybe that vendor needs to re-code their output from the ERP system that pushes all the product information and stock levels to the web anyway, may not even be the "web designer" which is probably a team of highly talented individuals that are delved very extremely deep in code deeper than many on here, probably including myself, see in a month every day.

It is funny to read the "marketing" tips. On a topic like this you will read "Make it for everyone, feed the masses, no one left out!" But when you are talking about a product or a new web site, every one gives advice like, "Oh, find one or two specialty products and find a niche that no one else has yet, target your site to a specific audience."

So conflicting, no wonder so many ventures fail these days, that and all the wonderful lawsuits floating around left and right.

edit------------

Just loaded their home page, they are using an app server for sure, and probably connecting to an enterprise db in the backend....check the url parameters...

A similar string is used on some Sun.com web pages/sites and leads me to beleive they are probably using an Oracle or other SQL based backend (not MySQL) and using java server pages, possibly some soap for web services and xml to connect to legacy systems.

Just my view based upon examining the web site....

[tomhoryn]

Perhaps we should lower our expectations? Apparently sh_t happens even at big corporation like CVS..

[sgray128]

Oh, for heaven's sake! Most of y'all are over the top on this. Like most people with something to sell, CVS wants every sale and would not intentionally turn away traffic. They probably made a mistake and discovered it too late. I'm sure they are feverishly trying to fix it.

My advice: have some patience, take a pill, relax.

[Chris]

sounds like sgray128 is already taking tomhoryn's advice about lowered expectations. far be it for the consumer to actually expect support from a site, especially one that supposedly caters (well, apparently not) to a lot of customers...

[bhartzer]

I just cannot understand someone having a policy of telling customers that they cannot view their web site because they're using a web browser like Opera or Internet Explorer.

Yes, you're right, maybe we need to lower expectations. Personally, I am not asking for or expecting support; just the ability to actually view a web site of a major corporation. Is that too much to ask?

I completely understand the issues with cross-browser compatibility that web designers face, and perhaps you want to use some web design and CSS features that won't be available to all web browsers. But to go so far as to turn away customers if they're no complaint? I certainly wouldn't do that if you came to my web site.

[southplatte]

Maybe IE beta users and Opera users are not in their "target" market?

[bhartzer]

OK, so let's look at the latest web browser statistics:

Browser Statistics Month by Month
2006 IE7 IE6 IE5 Ffox Moz N O
June 1.6% 58.2% 4.3% 24.9% 2.2% 0.3% 1.4%
May 1.1% 57.4% 4.5% 25.7% 2.3% 0.3% 1.5%
April 0.7% 58.0% 5.0% 25.2% 2.5% 0.4% 1.5%
March 0.6% 58.8% 5.3% 24.5% 2.4% 0.5% 1.5%
February 0.5% 59.5% 5.7% 25.1% 2.9% 0.4% 1.5%
January 0.2% 60.3% 5.5% 25.0% 3.1% 0.5% 1.6%

IE7 has 1.6 percent of the market share and Opera has 1.4 percent. Netscape has .3 percent. You are not allowed to view the CVS site if you are using IE7, Netscape, or Opera.

[bj]

Okay, so let's surmise the amount of traffic a site like CVS could possibly get and how that translates (and, by the way, those stats don't at all match my own, but we'll ignore that to make this easy.) Let's guess that CVS's site gets what? 5000 uniques a day? 10,000 uniques a day? At the low estimate they're excluding 165 visitors a day. That's 165 people a day who most likely will badmouth the CVS website and buy their stuff from CVS competitors. Not exactly a wise business or PR decision. Yes, I understand that it takes awhile to hack for a new browser (I have yet to check my own sites and probably won't until we're pretty close to final version on IE7, though I already know the others are fine) but that still begs the point that CVS probably has scads of folks who are capable of fixing this. It's stupid for them not to.

[bhartzer]

Not exactly a wise business or PR decision.

That's kind of what I was getting at.

As a web designer or web site owner, do you let your visitors view the site even though it might contain some "errors" or do you identify those visitors, not allow them to view the site at all, and give them an error message. Or, would you identify those users and serve them a version of the page that is compatible with all web browsers (a version of the page that probably doesn't use CSS.

Personally, I would never stop someone from viewing my web site (even though it doesn't necessarily load properly in the web browser they're using).

[southplatte]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

OK, so let's look at the latest web browser statistics:

Browser Statistics Month by Month
2006 IE7 IE6 IE5 Ffox Moz N O
June 1.6% 58.2% 4.3% 24.9% 2.2% 0.3% 1.4%
May 1.1% 57.4% 4.5% 25.7% 2.3% 0.3% 1.5%
April 0.7% 58.0% 5.0% 25.2% 2.5% 0.4% 1.5%
March 0.6% 58.8% 5.3% 24.5% 2.4% 0.5% 1.5%
February 0.5% 59.5% 5.7% 25.1% 2.9% 0.4% 1.5%
January 0.2% 60.3% 5.5% 25.0% 3.1% 0.5% 1.6%

IE7 has 1.6 percent of the market share and Opera has 1.4 percent. Netscape has .3 percent. You are not allowed to view the CVS site if you are using IE7, Netscape, or Opera.

You really can't base anything off of these stats as they are blanket stats, based off the web design industry, not the average everyday user's PC last I checked...I could be off on that one, but the point is, each site gets different traffic...one site I work with garners 20,000+ hits per day, of that .01% is Opera and .80% is Firefox (that includes 4 different versions of firefox)....for a total of .9% of our total daily traffic, which rounded is 1 percent, or 20 visitors that may get peaved if we didn't support their browser (which we do, because that is why I was brought on, re-work three web sites for compliance, availability and compatibility).

Even still, at your estimates bhartzer and BJ based upon the industry stats from w3schools, 1.4+1.6+.3= 3.3% of the market online. Okay, I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage than that physically drive to the CVS store, walk in and do not find the product they were looking for and end up going to a competitor.

Each market will get different benchmark results and blanket statistics only drive web designers bonkers (okay, they drive me nuts, because no site I have ever worked has followed the "industry" trend in browsers that is published).

Let's assume though that from both online and offline CVS serve 1 million per day, or even 10 million per day, that 165 estimated by BJ from the web site alone that refuse to use mainstream, widely supported and available to the masses technology are probably NOT going to close CVS down.

[southplatte]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

That's kind of what I was getting at.

As a web designer or web site owner, do you let your visitors view the site even though it might contain some "errors" or do you identify those visitors, not allow them to view the site at all, and give them an error message.

Personally, I would never stop someone from viewing my web site (even though it doesn't necessarily load properly in the web browser they're using).

You all have brought some really good discussion points in here. My only thought is if it in someway comprimises security, or doesn't send/recieve or interact with data properly, that could be much more costly than just redirecting to this error page until it is fixed properly. As I mentioned maybe the backend data exchange is an underlying problem with the way the browsers interact with it, and it causes issues. A company would rather not have data, than to have wrong data, and they would many times rather not display data than display it wrongly.

[bhartzer]

are probably NOT going to close CVS down.

Of course not. But, why would you possibly stop someone from viewing your site entirely even though it doesn't load properly or doesn't display in the proper font?

[bhartzer]

if it in someway comprimises security, or doesn't send/recieve or interact with data properly

So, you're saying that if I were to view the page in one web browser their system would display certain data and if I used another web browser it would display different data? Most likely not. I don't buy that, sorry.

I would gather that it's most likely a CSS issue more than anything else.

By the way, after actually viewing the code (through Rex Swain's HTTP Viewer), I also found other SEO No-Nos, like a meta refresh from domain.com to another page (why not use a 301 Permanent Redirect?) and something else: their server is a Netscape Enterprise server but actually won't allow someone using Netscape to view their site. Go figure.

Wow, once you get to http://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/cvs/index there's a 302 Redirect (another SEO No-No) to another page that gives you all sorts of cookies. Then, after you are redirected to the real page, there's a lot of JavaScript, Flash, and more than one CSS file.

Anyway, it all most likely could be cleaned up and certainly be made more SEO-friendly. And oh yeah, have you looked at what page they serve to Google? Google's cached version shows that Googlebot isn't allowed to view their site, either. Same with Yahoo! and MSN's bot. I guess they need to upgrade their web browser to have access to the CVS site, too.

The site has only about 49 pages indexed in Google and still ranks number 2 for 'online pharmacy'. Further proof that Google's algorithm has more to do with off-page factors than on-page factors. ;)

[southplatte]

I didn't mean that it would show different content to different browsers, but that they may feel the JS engine is not secure or the implementation not.

I agree is is likely a formatting issue, but again with a name of CVS and such you can get away with the SEO no-no's that the little guys cannot......they can break all the rules and not drastically suffer....also being that big I do not think that they are as dependent on search engine traffic as the regular online store is.

[southplatte]

[quote="bhartzer"]

and something else: their server is a Netscape Enterprise server but actually won't allow someone using Netscape to view their site. Go figure.

Didn't netscape sell their server software to Sun, who in turn called it iPlanet, which then got changed to SunOne Web/App server? If that is the case, it shows very dated technology, in which I would worry more about security on all the browsers (well the site really) rather than not being able to view it.

http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5667-10

[southplatte]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Further proof that Google's algorithm has more to do with off-page factors than on-page factors. ;)

Very interesting point, which could possibly be another reason they turn visitors away, they probably don't work as hard for them as your regular joe does....

[bockereyer]

Why, Oh why don't all browsers comply to the standards?
Ten's of Millions of people speak let's say English. Except for some minor regional differences everyone understands each other. Would it be so difficult for a few hundreds or even thousands browser programmers to speak the same language. They would make tens of thousands web designers/developpers and eventually billions of internetters all over the world happy people.

[southplatte]

Originally Posted by bockereyer

Why, Oh why don't all browsers comply to the standards?
Ten's of Millions of people speak let's say English. Except for some minor regional differences everyone understands each other. Would it be so difficult for a few hundreds or even thousands browser programmers to speak the same language. They would make tens of thousands web designers/developpers and eventually billions of internetters all over the world happy people.

Interesting concept....if the browser were made to standards, standards accepted and applied by designers problems like this would not exist.

[bhartzer]

Would it be so difficult for a few hundreds or even thousands browser programmers to speak the same language.

Is it so hard for a web designer to build a site that is compliant and works in all browsers?

[southplatte]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Is it so hard for a web designer to build a site that is compliant and works in all browsers?

If the browsers were compliant to the standards that the site is compliant to, then no it is not hard to accomplish. Or are you talking about making it compliant to each browser rather than the standards?

As a side note --

When you make something standards compliant, that doesn't gaurantee cross-browser compatibility, as I have seen 100% compliant xhtml and css based sites break in one browser or another. At the enterprise level, it may require reprogramming or additional modules in the ERP/CMS/Portal software (many times this is what publishes the end data to the web) to produce the compliant version for each browser. It is not as simple as recoding the pages, if the backend system writes any html/css output, that system needs reprogrammed, which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars easily, not to mention several months development time for it, which by that time, new standards are releases and/or promoted by each browser (not necessarily the W3 or any other standards body) that need to be accounted for.

I guess what I am trying to say, is in a large enterprise, with data coming out of back end systems, with yet other systems writing some of the html/css/code it is not an overnight process to re-write the entire system for each new browser release, or in some cases for each browser.

Now, if you are talking your independent designer, or design/marketing shop creating sites of less than 200 pages, using a current CMS or creating a new CMS system for the client, then yes, it should be done that way to start. But in an enterprise system, it may be 5-8 years old, written to manage the business with a "web module" add-on for the web site management and creation and outputting things that are non-compliant today.

[bj]

But in an enterprise system, it may be 5-8 years old, written to manage the business with a "web module" add-on for the web site management and creation and outputting things that are non-compliant today.

And with the imminent release of IE7 no huge sites running on legacy software are going to be updated until IE7 is in final version. Not when the dollar numbers for redesign are that huge. They only wanna do it once. Or at least once until the new thing better than sliced bread comes along.

[dvdtvshows1]

Dear bhartzer

I work for Walgreens, give us a try.
We do carry the formula bottles you were looking for.

In fairness to CVS, no-one's code is perfect, and the decision of what to put on the failure page was probably made by comittee. The design team probably did not expect many people to get to that page.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by dvdtvshows1

The design team probably did not expect many people to get to that page.

Whoops!

[bhartzer]

I work for Walgreens, give us a try.

Thanks, I immediately went to the comptetition when I couldn't access the CVS site. ;)

[jestep]

I absolutely hate it when companies put themselves before their customers.

With that in mind, and the limited coverage of webproworld compared to other avenues of the internet, I dug your post. Please feel free to Digg it as well.

http://digg.com/design/CVS_Pharmacy_Un_usability

[bhartzer]

Thanks jestep, I just dugg it too. ;)

If anyone else wants to digg it, feel free ;)