Report: Retail Mobile Site Problems Galore

Written by Evan Schuman
November 11th, 2010

When retail consulting firm The E-Tailing Group tried testing where M-Commerce stands today on various mobile devices, they proved what many in the industry already knew: Mobile is still the lowest ranked of retail channels, which is robbing many chains of revenue they might otherwise be able to pull in.

One issue hurting M-Commerce functionality is, ironically, that some execs may be taking early M-Commerce advice to heart. The initial advice had been to minimize functionality and images as much as possible, given the tiny screens and limited horsepower of mobile devices.

But recent mobile improvements—especially in the Apple and Android arenas—could justify a slight liberalization of those rules. This is especially true given the roughly six to 10 months of development time required and the near certainty that major mobile devices will be stronger yet by then.

The E-tailing study found some interesting specific trends:

  • Keep Mobile A Secret
    The report found many retail sites “inaccessible via direct URL entry or Google search and are inadequately promoted on the merchant E-Commerce sites, via targeted E-mails and on in-store collateral materials for those with brick and mortar locations.”

  • Crashes And Other Gotchas
    “Technical snafus are abundant. Due to error messages, downed sites and other logistical problems, shopping often cannot be completed in one session, if at all.”

  • Not Using What The Web Does Routinely
    The report detailed technical problems that resulted in mobile shoppers being unable to “access customer profile information like shipping/billing addresses, payment information and saved wish lists or shopping carts, slowing down the checkout process.”

    These trends go beyond slowing down the checkout process. With mobile, that process is already much more difficult to complete and many mobile-comfortable consumers will simply abandon the effort. Or, more to the point, surf over to a retailer that handles mobile far better.

    Other issues included mobile sites that were not optimized for key platforms, resulting in “an inconsistent shopping experience.” We’ve done a lot of mobile testing, too, and “inconsistent” experience is a very polite phrasing. When the site isn’t optimized for the browser the customer is using, the term for the experience is more accurately “really bad.”

    Additional concerns generally involved the lack of timesaving capabilities—such as one-click and sticky forms—that are common on the Web. This is a critical problem. Mobile users truly need that functionality, even more Web users. If consumers have to repeatedly type in their credit card numbers on a Web site, it’s very annoying. But if consumers have to thumb those same numbers through repeatedly on their phones, well, many simply won’t.

    Some sites defaulted to the full Web site. As the report noted, that “dramatically reduces their usability.” And in a wonderful example of benefitting from an obvious mobile advantage, store phone numbers were often not clickable. (That’s a delicious twist. Developers are so deeply into the M-Commerce functionality that they forget the device’s original purpose was to be a telephone.)

    Lauren Freedman, founder of the E-tailing Group, said one of the key problems she discovered was the lack of sorting ability in search responses. “To not be able to sort when you get 20 feature responses” is unacceptable, she said.

  • advertisement

    One Comment | Read Report: Retail Mobile Site Problems Galore

    1. Cathy Says:

      In my experience in testing mobile applications, I have found that a lot of websites are not at all compatible with mobile browsing. This is one of many reasons for very low m-commerce.


    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.