E-Commerce Sales Dropped 3 Percent For Holiday Season ’08, Worse Than Expected

Written by Evan Schuman
December 31st, 2008

E-Commerce holiday purchases this year dropped 3 percent from the corresponding period last year, hitting $25.5 billion, according to ComScore.

“The 2008 online holiday shopping season has declined 3 percent versus year ago, falling behind our expectation of flat sales this year,” said ComScore Chairman Gian Fulgoni. “This marks the first time we’ve seen negative growth rates for the holiday season since we began tracking E-Commerce in 2001. The combination of having five fewer shopping days between Thanksgiving and Christmas and the severe economic headwinds faced by consumers has made this a really tough season for retailers, both offline and online.”

ComScore defined the holiday season as running from November 1 to December 23. When it expanded that timeframe to look at almost the full fourth quarter—which ComScore defines as running from October 1 to December 28—the numbers actually got slightly worse, with identical year-to-year quarter comparisons with 2007 showing a 4 percent drop to $36.8 billion. “The fourth quarter of 2008 will also mark the first full quarter to record a negative growth rate since ComScore began tracking E-Commerce,” said a ComScore statement.

When the topic moves away from revenue to unique visitors and examines specific retailers, the picture changes. For the record, ‘unique visitors’ is not the best metric for evaluating E-Commerce activity. Most sites rely heavily on repeat purchases from top customers, so to treat every visitor—regardless of what that visitor does while visiting—the same and to ignore repeat visits—as unique visitor tracking does—is not an ideal E-Commerce metric. Still, taken with a grain of HTML salt, it can be interesting.

That said, the top-ranked sites saw some significant increases, and decreases, in their unique visitor numbers., for example, is the fifth top site and saw a 19 percent increase compared with last year’s identical period. Other sites that saw sharp increases in their ‘uniques’ were 13th-ranked Hewlett-Packard, with a 28 percent increase, and second-to-the-top-ranked Amazon, with a 7 percent increase.

On the down side, #10 Circuit City dropped 21 percent, #14 Dell dropped 17 percent, #11 Overstock dropped 16 percent, #12 American Greetings dropped 15 percent, #7 JC Penney dropped 11 percent, #8 Toys R Us fell 9 percent and #1 eBay took a 4 percent hit.

The full list in sequence—from highest to the 15th lowest in unique visitors—is eBay, Amazon, Walmart, Target, Apple, Best Buy, JC Penney, Toys R Us, Sears, Circuit City, Overstock, American Greetings, HP, Dell and Macys.


Comments are closed.


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!

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...

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.