advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Smaller Is Faster? For E-Commerce, Don’t Count On It

Written by Frank Hayes
June 21st, 2012

The old rules for speeding up E-Commerce Web sites are toast. That’s the clear conclusion to draw from a new Pingdom study, released on Tuesday (June 19), comparing performance of the top 100 E-Commerce sites—including dozens of big retail-chain sites. Some fat sites are fast anyway. Some lightweight sites are surprisingly slow. And what’s really killing performance seems to be metrics.

The good news: Virtually all the large retailers got their response times down under the fabled three-second mark. The bad news: There’s no longer a clear correlation between speed and site size and the number of files requested, the variables that Pingdom tracked in this study.

The chains with the fastest sites—we knew you were waiting for this—are Forever 21 (#2 out of 100), IKEA (#4), Walgreens (#5), REI (#6), Kohl’s (#7) and Bloomingdale’s (#10). Bringing up the rear is Neiman Marcus (#92), which along with Victoria’s Secret (#89) and Bed Bath and Beyond (#86) had the only sites that took more than three seconds to load.

Among other major chains, Walmart (#57), Target (#60) and CVS (#81) were top-10 chains that fell in the bottom half of the rankings, behind Best Buy (#13), Lowes (#24), Home Depot (#28), Sears (#32) and Kmart (#39). Amazon was #20. (A link to the complete list is here.)

But enough of the horse race. What’s much more interesting about the results is how random they appear, at least according to conventional Web site performance wisdom. Pingdom headlined its survey report “Slim and trim to slow and bloated—the top 100 E-Commerce websites,” but that’s a little misleading. Two of the fastest sites (REI.com and Kohls.com) are also among the most bloated, as measured by the amount of data that has to be downloaded—they’re more than twice the size of an average site in the study.

That’s not the only place the old smaller-is-faster paradigm falls apart. Yes, IKEA has a slim site that’s also fast. Forever 21 is even faster, but it comes in at #62 for slimness—it’s heftier than average.

Meanwhile, Saks Fifth Avenue has one of the smallest sites, but it’s only #49 for speed. And CVS, at just over half the average size, is simply slow compared to almost all the other retailers.

True, some of the smaller sites perform faster. But smaller-is-faster is no longer a reliable rule—if it ever was.

Ironically, what’s slowing down some of the big-chain sites are calls out to third parties—such as Web metrics and tracking services—that drag down site load times but are outside the control of retailers.


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.