advertisement
advertisement

Tablet Retail Impact: Sometimes, No Change Is The Best Strategy

Written by Evan Schuman
November 16th, 2011

What, if anything, should retailers do differently about tablet computers, in an M-Commerce context? Not much, it turns out. But it’s hard to glean that from the flood of stats out there. Consider some numbers IBM Coremetrics has been talking up recently. The company reported that “shoppers using an iPad will lead to more retail purchases more often per visit than other mobile devices,” with iPad conversion rates at 6.8 percent versus 3.6 percent for all mobile devices. That may be true, of course. But it’s also obvious that the larger screen of a tablet will enable more activity than the typical smartphone. What if IBM Coremetrics had said that shoppers using a laptop or a desktop computer will deliver more purchases than a smartphone?

That said, tablets are becoming quite popular, and a migration of sales from PCs and laptops down to tablets is inevitable. From the chain’s perspective, though, that change may be barely felt, because the tablets will simply be accessing your regular Web site. At best, it might be a slightly tweaked version of your site. Most of the current tablets don’t really need much—if any—tweaking to deliver an acceptable experience.

To put tablets into perspective, there are only three place categories at issue: home/office; in-store; and in-transit (walking, on a train or plane, in a car, or visiting a customer or a friend). Let’s look at each of those three areas.

  • Home/Office
    There will be a fairly slight migration away from the laptop/desktop to the tablet here. First, sales of tablets will increase and desktop/laptop sales will start to slow down. It will take several years, but tablets will start to replace their larger ancestors. Second, it’s true that as long as there is a laptop/desktop in the house, most E-Commerce/M-Commerce in the office/home will happen there. But there will be a small movement away even when both options co-exist. That will happen because of the ease of movement of the tablet. It will make major inroads in the “sitting on the couch, lying in bed” category.

    As referenced earlier, though, to what end? It won’t merit any significantly different effort on the part of the retailer, beyond the routine tweaks to make the site as accessible to tablets as possible.

  • In-Store
    For the next year or so—and maybe quite a bit longer—tablets are not going to be a customer-using factor here. Store associates will be using tablets extensively, but it’s highly unlikely consumers will pull out their tablets in-store. Smartphones will dominate here for quite some time.

  • In Transit
    Here’s where tablets are going to dominate. Sitting in a waiting room or on a train or in a plane, consumers will have the time and lap space to tabletize. And, yes, to the point IBM was trying to make, this will likely generate a net increase in E-Commerce/M-Commerce sales. It will generate sales that wouldn’t have happened on the smartphone (screen is too small, sites too slow) and also wouldn’t have happened on a laptop (too bulky and battery-hogging for shopping).


  • advertisement

    2 Comments | Read Tablet Retail Impact: Sometimes, No Change Is The Best Strategy

    1. Nick Says:

      It seems that you’re making the assumption that bigger screen = better conversion rate. The really interesting question is whether shopping apps and shopping sites optimized for tablets will convert at a higher rate than the laptop/desktop. If they aren’t today, they will one day.

    2. Evan Schuman Says:

      We’re not precisely saying that there is a direct correlation between screen size and conversion rate. That would suggest that a huge screen (such as a two-page screen popular with graphic artists) would convert powerful and I have no reason to think that’s the case. It’s really about convenience. In short, “How easy is it to make purchases and generally navigate on the device?”
      Any decent mobile device has a decent amount of convenience, but it’s small screen is a hurdle. As tablets get close to delivering 90 percent of the ease-of-use of a desktop and 100 percent of the convenience of a mobile phone, they’ll win the conversion race. There are other factors, too, though, such as Wallet proximity. If my device happens to have my payment method memorized, great. If it doesn’t I’ll more inclined to deal with that on a desktop.
      Bottom line: It’s not solely about screen size but about ease of researching and completing a purchase.

    Leave a Reply

    Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
    Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

    Newsletters

    StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 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.