Mobile Sites Are Supposed To Be Slow, But Not This Slow

Written by Evan Schuman
February 3rd, 2010

Best Buy Does OK, Costco Tanks. When Keynote Systems started looking at the mobile sites from major retailers late last year, the veteran mobile and Web site test and measurement firm knew that these sites would be a lot slower than their wired Web counterparts. But some at Keynote were caught off-guard by just how slow some of the major retailers’ mobile sites were..

To put this difference into context, Keynote argues that a wired Web site should, on average, be able to deliver a page—especially the site’s homepage—within two seconds. For mobile, Keynote said, users should tolerate sites that are about twice as slow, or about 4 seconds on average. In its examination of 10 major E-tail sites—Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, Costco, Dell, Foot Locker, Musician’s Friend, Sears, Target and Walmart—the very fastest site (Best Buy) averaged more than twice Keynote’s acceptable slow estimate, crawling in at 8.3 seconds. Again, that was the fastest mobile site. The slowest site delivered its average page in 34 seconds.

When the company tested mobile search, it found similar slowpokes. Wired Web searches can often take a small fraction of a second. The fastest mobile search response Keynote found was from Walmart, at 4.5 seconds, while the slowest of the sites came in at 38 seconds.

Ken Harker, a Keynote senior manager for mobile and Internet technologies, said the differences between the mobile sites of the strongest and the weakest of these 10 sites were many, but they mostly revolved around how seriously that chain took mobile.

Harker said the biggest factor, logically enough, is how much data the retailer makes the user download before the page can be displayed. Best Buy, for example, Harker said, only had three elements on its mobile homepage. “It’s stripped down,” he said.

Compare that to the slowest site, which had an impressive 70 elements on its homepage, including 40 images, Flash and “more than 10” JavaScript elements. “They’re not really making an effort to trim down the site for the mobile market. Images, JavaScript, stylesheets, HTML elements—it adds up very quickly. They’re not doing any optimization for mobile customers at all,” Harker said, adding that Best Buy made extensive use of cache, which the slowest site did not do.

Keynote officials—including Harker—steadfastly refused to identify which site was the slowest. That said, points made by Keynote while discussing the study pretty much eliminated all of the tested retailers other than Costco from being candidates for the slowest performing site. Of the 10 retailers named, Keynote said those that topped any category did not do especially poorly in any of the other categories. That rules out Best Buy (which came in number one in homepage performance), Walmart (number one in search), Foot Locker (number one in product information performance), Sears (#2 in homepage delivery), Barnes & Noble (#2 in both homepage delivery and product information delivery) and Amazon (#3 in search results).

That accounts for six sites, leaving four: Costco, Dell, Musician’s Friend and Target. And Target, Musician’s Friend and Dell all have homepages that clearly have far fewer than 40 images. That leaves only Costco, which has far more images on its homepage. This seems to concur with a report from Citi that identified Costco as one of the less sophisticated retailers when it comes to using technology.

In earlier studies on mobile performance and wired Web performance, some sites that fared poorly defended their position, saying that it’s neither fair nor rational to put all sites on equal footing. For example, they say, a site that is pitching multimedia for a very young audience may need to have more graphics, more Flash animation, and more movement and activity than what some might consider necessary for a more utilitarian site such as a hardware store.

Although that is certainly a legitimate position, the flip side is also true. Wouldn’t it be the case that those attention-deficient, easily bored shoppers are likely to be the first ones to abandon your site if it takes too long to load? A better mobile approach might be to offer quickly served minimalistic homepages—so shoppers get on the site quickly—and then offer explicitly described links for multimedia. That way, customers’ waiting expectations are properly set, but only after they are safely inside your mobile store.


4 Comments | Read Mobile Sites Are Supposed To Be Slow, But Not This Slow

  1. Fabien Tiburce Says:

    When Google rose to prominence, the leading “portals” at the time were racing to see who could bloat their homepage more with ever shrinking fonts. It seems this lesson has been forgotten with some mobile apps. Here is a shocker: by and large, users don’t care how your mobile page looks. Really. Users want to be able to find what they are looking for quickly. You need to optimize your templates and navigation for mobility. Putting your webpage on the mobile is a recipe for disaster. How do you do that? Stop listening to designers and web developers with little or no mobile experience. Talk to a usability expert and an experienced mobile developer. One mobile application I happen to know intimately has no flash, no javascript and, other than content, only one image (the logo). It flies and is completely portable. Users want to use it; there is no secret.

  2. mobile sites Says:

    I agree. Stick with XHTML MP or something light-weight. Most anyway mobile browsers can’t process fancy stuff like flash.

  3. Wayne Brown Says:

    These retailers need a mobile-centric knowledgeable vendor that only develops mobile side solutions. What happened at these retailers, is that full-screen, non-mobile-centric developers were used. The best mobile apps do not come from the minds of full-screen, PC/Server, type programmers. I’ll bet that the retailers criteria matrix didn’t even include performance benchmarking. Why, because they are thinking like PC/Server developers…….

  4. Frank Says:

    Shopping on a mobile is just as silly as trying to watch video on one, the new gadget fascination brought on by witless people. And people wonder why the world is so messed up. Greed, not so smart people, the list goes on and on…


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.