advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

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

June 21st, 2012

Ironically, what’s slowing down some of the big-chain sites may not be problems that retail IT shops can easily fix. Inadequate bandwidth and not-fast-enough servers might be part of the problem. But a clear reason some sites can’t finish loading quickly is that they are calling out to third parties—such as Web metrics and tracking services—that drag down site load times but are outside the control of retailers.

That’s not in Pingdom’s study, but a little digging with Pingdom’s own tools makes it apparent. For example, slowest big-retailer site NeimanMarcus.com is actually 10 percent smaller than top-ranked Forever21.com. But almost all the HTTP requests for Forever 21 actually go to the retailer’s site, while one-quarter of Neiman Marcus’s HTTP requests go to outside sites—including one that, in a test run we made using Pingdom’s tool, took more than a second and a half to deliver a few hundred bytes.

That’s what kills Neiman Marcus’ response time. Or rather, it’s what slows the site’s speed down so it loads in under four seconds instead of under three seconds. That’s still fast—probably fast enough that customers don’t care. The must-load-in-three-seconds-or-customers-will-leave rule is also highly overrated—it’s based on studies of mainframe users from decades ago—but three seconds remains the target for most E-Commerce sites.

And that three-second target is probably the biggest challenge any E-Commerce team faces in trying to improve site performance. It’s pretty clear that if a relatively fat site can load in less than a second, the idea that sites have to be slim to be quick is dead. The fattest site in Pingdom’s survey (that’s Ticketmaster’s site, at 2.5MB) loaded in 2.33 seconds—well under that three-second target. Clearly, all that effort to speed up sites really has paid off.

Of course, once a site loads in less than three seconds, performance is obviously fine—which serves as an invitation to designers to add more complicated graphics, to CRM specialists to add more tracking tools and to anyone else connected with the site to fill up the bandwidth. If there’s any time to spare, they’ll fill it.

That’s not a bad thing in itself—CRM data is useful, and if fancy graphics make products look more appealing on a high-definition display, so much the better. But customer tracking and other functions will always end up soaking up more performance than is actually available. That means the site has to keep getting faster, and any headroom will attract even more speed-devouring ideas.

From here on in, keeping your site fast is going to require a lot more fine tuning—and you’ll get a lot less help from rules of thumb. The simple ways of speeding up sites have pretty much been used up.


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.