advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

In Theory, E-Commerce Sites Are Way Too Slow. But Do Customers Care?

January 25th, 2012

This is probably why homepages are getting bigger, even though smaller pages load faster. The average number of objects (images, buttons and, particularly, scripts) on a site rose 14 percent in 2011 to 98, from 86 objects in 2010, according to the Strangeloop report. Some of that is just clutter, but some comes from third-parties providing functions such as recommendation engines. Still more of it is for analytics and customer tracking.

If customers were actually abandoning your site in droves, you’d have good reason to go slicing away at the CRM, analytics and recommendations just to speed things up—after all, you can’t sell anything to a customer who has walked away. But there’s no evidence from retailers that customers actually jump ship as quickly as the theorists say they will—as long as customers believe there’s something worth waiting for.

Maybe the most surprising item in the Strangeloop report is that although more retail sites are using content delivery networks, that isn’t translating into quicker Web sites in front of users. According to the report, CDN use by retailers has grown by 17 percent. But sites using CDNs load on average in 10.058 seconds, while non-CDN sites have an average load time of 9.72 seconds.

Strangeloop figures the difference appears because the retailers using CDNs have bigger sites, or maybe they figure that with the improved speed of a CDN they can afford to have bigger sites. But that misses the point. A 10-second load time should be deadly, with or without a CDN. Clearly, it’s not.

None of that means looking for ways to speed up Web sites is a bad idea. Making sure customers aren’t waiting, say, half a minute for your site to load is certainly worth the trouble, especially if it’s due to one of those third-party services. And mobile-commerce sites still vary wildly in how long they take to load on a smartphone, which suggests there’s lots of benefit to be gained from some relatively easy tuning.

But fine-tuning to shave off a fraction of a second? Ridiculous. At this point, trotting out the same idealized numbers from a bygone mainframe era is pointless. The real wait that customers will accept today isn’t 3 seconds—it’s 10 seconds. Faster than that is nice. But until customers actually do start leaving after just a few seconds, E-Commerce sites have bigger problems to worry about.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.