The report summarizes new research on e-commerce user experience, comparing findings to the first edition from 2000. Key findings include:
- Success rates have improved from 56% to 72%, but many failures are still due to poor content.
- Search success has increased from 51% to 64% but falls short of user expectations.
- Old guidelines from 2000 were largely confirmed, showing the longevity of usability findings.
- Sites must support different shopper types beyond known-item purchases.
- Loyalty programs can increase direct traffic and conversion rates compared to search-based visits.
6. Executive Summary
(Yes, this is a summary of the summary. Considering that the full E-Commerce User
Experience report series clocks in at 2,140 pages with 1,715 screenshots, the more
summaries the merrier :-)
To give away the bottom line, the number of usability guidelines for e-commerce
sites has increased from 207 in the first edition of this report to 874 in the current
edition. Using this rough metric, we now know 4.2 times as much about e-commerce
user experience as we did during the dot-com bubble.
USABILITY METRICS SHOW NICE IMPROVEMENTS
In our first e-commerce studies, in 2000, we recorded a success rate of 56% across
496 task attempts on the e-commerce sites of the day. In our new research, we
observed 507 e-commerce task attempts and measured a success rate of 72%.
In other words, during the dot-com bubble, user failed almost half the time when
they tried to shop on e-commerce sites. No wonder the bubble burst, with sites that
bad. Now, users fail slightly more than a quarter of the time. Sites are still leaving
plenty of money on the table, but not as much.
Today, our main reason to recommend usability improvements for e-commerce sites
is really the competitive pressure from other sites that keep getting better. Yes,
there’s also an argument for improving design purely to reduce user failures, but this
is not as critical as it was in the past. Today’s consumers are not satisfied with sites
that simply make it possible to shop. The experience must also be pleasant, so we
should look beyond success rates, much as the ability to complete tasks remains the
first line of requirements.
Search remains a sore point, even though it has improved somewhat. In our first
study, users succeeded in their first search attempt on an e-commerce site 51% of
the time. In the new study, users’ first within-site query was successful 64% of the
time.
Users’ expectations for search quality are far beyond what’s actually delivered by
today’s websites. As with most other aspects of web usability, user expectations are
set by their aggregated user experience 1 from around the web. In the case of
search, this mainly means Google and the other major search engines. While not
perfect, these sites do work pretty well. When users search an e-commerce site and
don’t find what they want, they often assume that the site doesn’t have the desired
product. Users have poor search skills and will leave more often than they will figure
out how to reformulate their queries.
1
As Jakob’s Law of the Internet User Experience states: users spend the majority of their time on
other sites than yours.
6 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Executive Summary
8. Other tasks were broader and assessed the degree to which the site could inspire
users who don’t have a particular need in mind. For example: “You just got a
promotion and a bonus and you want to treat yourself. Buy yourself something.
Spend no more than £200 at Links of London.”
We also tested web-wide tasks where we didn’t specify what site the user should
use. For example: “The lightbulb in your desk lamp just burned out. Get a
replacement for it.” (With this task, we gave users the burned out bulb.)
Finally, we tested a range of customer service tasks. For example: “Can you get a
refund for tickets you buy from cinema.com.hk if there is a typhoon signal?”
SUPPORTING DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHOPPERS
Our diary study looked at why and how people shop on their own, when we don’t
give them test tasks to perform. In total, diary-writers recorded 263 visits to e-
commerce sites.
2/3 of the time, users visited a site with a pre-determined goal: 35% of visits were
to look for a particular type of product (without having a specific product in mind),
and 27% of visits were to look for a specific product.
1/3 of the time, users visited a site to see what the site had to offer. Many of these
visits were prompted by the receipt of an email newsletter or otherwise learning
about sales or special offers.
Sites must support all these forms of use:
• Known-item purchase.
• Category research, leading users to identify and buy the best match with
their needs.
• Bargain-hunting.
• Browsing for inspiration.
Finally, some users are one-time shoppers. They don’t know the site, and they don’t
intend to return, but they may want to shop there once. (Maybe they received a gift
card, or maybe a relative wished for a gift carried by that site.)
BAD CONTENT KILL SALES
The first rule of e-commerce design remains: if the customer cannot find the
product, the customer cannot buy the product.
But in our new studies, the main problem was not so much finding the product as it
was finding out about the product. 55% of the 143 user failures we observed were
caused by bad content: incomplete or unclear information, uninformative error
messages, or simply users stating that they would have to call or email the site. (The
latter clearly indicating that the company had neglected the opportunity to answer
the user’s questions on the site.)
Content can be verbal or visual — in either case it needs to provide the information
users need to decide on products and to be convinced to trust the site with their
money.
8 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Executive Summary
10. Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce
Report Series
E-COMMERCE REPORT SERIES
This report is one of 13 reports about the E-Commerce user experience. Ten of the
reports in the series were generated from the findings of two rounds of e-commerce
research studies. The first editions of these reports were published as a book, with
each of nine chapters also available as a downloadable report. The second edition
includes an additional report, based on the same series of studies, about customer
service.
This series also includes three additional volumes which are a result of additional
research studies, separate from the main e-commerce research. These reports are
included in the series due to their direct relationship to the e-commerce user
experience and cover the topics of wishlists and gift certificates, store locators, and
confirmation and transactional email messages. Each of these reports includes a
section about methodology, covering the details of each research project.
The entire E-Commerce User Experience series is available for download at
www.nngroup.com/reports/ecommerce and includes the following titles:
1. General User Behavior & Executive Summary [this report]
2. Homepages and Category Pages (including Product Listing Pages and
Product Comparisons)
3. Product Pages (including Reviews)
4. Shopping Cart, Checkout & Registration
5. Search (including Faceted Search)
6. Customer Service
7. Selling Strategies
8. Wishlists, Gift Certificates and Gift Giving
9. Trust and Credibility
10. International Users
11. Store Finders and Locators
12. Transactional Email and Confirmation Messages
13. Methodology
RESEARCH STUDIES
The information in these reports is a result of two separate rounds of e-commerce
studies conducted by Nielsen Norman Group. The studies took place in the United
States, United Kingdom, Denmark, and China (Hong Kong), and involved user
testing, a diary-based longitudinal study and an eye tracking component.
The Methodology report in the E-Commerce Report Series includes the full details of
each study, the list of sites tested, and information about participants.
The Wishlists and Gift Certificates, Transactional Email and Confirmation Messages
and Locator Usability reports are based on additional research studies. Each of these
three reports includes its own methodology section.
Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report
10 INFO@NNGROUP.COM
Series
12. More than 100 sites were included in the user testing component of the study. Sites
selected for testing included sites big and small, from various industries with varied
product offerings and different design approaches. In addition, users completed tasks
on sites they had previously visited. Participants provided a list of sites during the
recruiting process and were asked to visit one of them during the study. This
expanded the number as well as the types of sites tested.
Tasks were modeled after those in the first study, including directed tasks asking
users to find specific items, open-ended tasks allowing for site exploration, and
customer service related tasks. Users proceeded as far as possible through the
purchase process with fake user information.
Users completed three additional types of tasks in the second study. Users visited
sites they had visited before, which allowed us to observe users returning to a site as
a repeat visitor. Users also completed open-ended tasks where they were given a
goal of something to purchase, but were not directed to any particular website to
make the purchase.
The New York component of the study also included a task where users completed a
purchase. Users selected one of five sites on which to shop and were given a budget.
They could purchase any item or items they wanted from the site within their
budget, send the purchase to themselves, and be reimbursed for the purchase price.
The same facilitator ran all sessions in the second study, except for the Georgia
tests. In all sessions, the facilitator sat next to the user, providing instructions,
observing and taking notes. Users thought aloud as they worked.
ABOUT THE SECOND EDITION
The second edition includes new guidelines derived from our second study, as well as
revisions, clarifications and further examples of guidelines from the previous edition
of this report.
All screenshots in the reports show how each site appeared at the time it was tested.
This includes screenshots from Study One, which are included without updates.
Although any of the site designs in the report may have changed since the sites were
tested, we use the screenshots as the sites appeared when our test users tried to
use the sites.
For instructional purposes, all examples are valuable. They reflect actual designs and
real user behaviors, which in turn create best practices that stand the test of time.
Lessons learned from these designs are valid, even when the specific sites where
those screens were found have updated their designs. Including examples helps
illustrate good and bad usability examples, which can help designers learn from
previous mistakes and successes.
Participants’ personal information has been blurred on screenshots.
Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report
12 INFO@NNGROUP.COM
Series
14. Pros and Cons of Online Shopping
WHY SHOP ONLINE
Users’ key reasons for shopping online were:
• Access to products and selection of products
• Price
• Convenience
These may seem like obvious reasons, but it behooves websites to have their
design emphasize how they meet these basic consumer needs and wants.
Access and Selection
E-commerce sites allow users access to products they might not otherwise have.
One shopper living in Montana in the United States wanted to shop at The Children’s
Store for her daughter, but the closest store was 5 hours away. The website allowed
her to shop without driving 10 hours round trip.
Another user explained, “My husband buys flour online. It’s for some whole grain
bread he makes, freshly ground, a certain kind. I just got 10 pounds delivered the
other day.”
Some shoppers looked for goods internationally. For instance, shoppers in Hong
Kong mentioned buying quality goods from other countries. While many of our Hong
Kong participants did not shop online frequently due to the variety and ease of
shopping in Hong Kong, several mentioned using international websites to find items
they could not find in Hong Kong. One user said, “I buy books there that I can’t find
in Hong Kong’s bookstores.”
Several female shoppers in Hong Kong mentioned buying lingerie and underwear
from Victoria’s Secret because it was difficult to find attractive, fashionable items
locally. A male shopper said he ordered shoes from London because he used to live
there and knew the shoes fit well and were well-made. He also bought golf
equipment from a US site because he preferred the brand and could save money
over buying locally, even factoring in international shipping charges.
Users appreciated the access to products and the selection of products available
online, which widely broadened the product selection available in local stores,
regardless of their location. They enjoyed the selection, whether within one site or
available across several sites.
Price
Users were often looking for a bargain online. Some users assumed online prices
would be lower than local prices. One said, “Things are generally cheaper when you
buy them online.” Another said, “Most of the time, items are a lot cheaper than in
the stores.”
Shoppers appreciated that they could look around for the best price online more
easily than they could by going store to store. Traveling between stores is much
quicker online than it is in the physical world.
14 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Pros and Cons of Online Shopping
16. Many users preferred finding their own answers on websites, rather than having to
contact the company. One of the benefits users mentioned of shopping online was
not having to deal with people — whether it was pushy or uninformed salespeople,
cashiers, or other customers. These users wanted to be able to find and buy products
without having to interact with anyone.
For example, a user who was shopping for a custom fruit basket searched and ended
up on the Gift Baskets of Pleasanton site, where such baskets were offered.
However, the site did not allow users to customize baskets online — a phone call or
email was required. The user said, “Ah, you have to email them. I just can’t order it.
Let’s go back.” Having to contact the company was a hurdle in the user’s shopping
experience.
One user stopped shopping on the Gift Baskets of Pleasanton site when she realized
she would have to contact the company to customize a basket. She wanted to
complete her order without having to contact anyone.
WHAT'S MISSING ONLINE
Shopping Is Social
The solitary nature of most online shopping was also a detriment for some shoppers.
Some wanted input from friends and family, and a handful even called friends or
family or asked the facilitator for input while shopping during our study. One user
made a phone call during a task, explaining, “She's been looking for a flannel
blanket, too. I needed to know what color she wanted.”
16 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Pros and Cons of Online Shopping
18. Willingness to Shop Online
WHAT PEOPLE WILL AND WON’T BUY ONLINE
Users were most comfortable buying a known product, such as a book, DVD or CD
online. They were more comfortable buying known brands, or from stores whose
products they knew well. They were most comfortable when what they were buying
online was in no way going to be a surprise.
Of course, shopping preferences vary by shopper. Some of our participants were
willing to buy almost anything online for the convenience and price. Others stuck to
only what was known. One user said, “A washing machine is a washing machine. You
don't need to go into a shop to see that it's a washing machine.”
Some liked to get items that would be awkward or difficult to get home by
themselves delivered to them instead. One user said she would buy “toilet roll
because it's bulky. It would be handy having that delivered.”
Users commonly listed three types of products as those they'd be less likely to buy
online:
• tactile products
• expensive products
• perishable products
Tactile Products
The tactile nature of shopping in a store versus shopping online was a big
consideration for many users. Users mentioned reluctance to buy clothing, bedding,
pillows, and upholstered furniture — things they would like to see, touch, wear or
use before buying. For instance, while a shopper may have been comfortable buying
a sweater like one he’d seen in a store, he was more hesitant to buy another one
sight unseen — and even more importantly, untouched. As one user said, “Anything
like a bed, mattress, sofa: you need to lie on it and get the feeling of it before you
make a decision.”
One main concern for shoppers was fit, for items that they would normally try on in
the store. A user said of buying pants from Lands' End online, “I just don't trust fits
until I try them on. I know Lee fits, so I buy it. But if I went into a store and tried it
on and knew it fit, then I would buy it online. Now that I know about these pants, I
would go and try them on and then get them online. I think Sears carries them.”
Another said, “Clothes, I never buy online. I like to try them on before I make a
decision.”
There is no tactile nature to the Web. Stores will always have that advantage. But
consider what can be done to assuage users’ concerns about buying items without
having touched or experienced them. Excellent product descriptions can answer
users’ questions. High quality images, from a variety of angles and showing various
features, can emphasize and clarify product details.
18 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Willingness to Shop Online
20. E-Counters offered low cost samples of countertop materials.
Expensive Items
Some users were hesitant to buy expensive items online. Users couldn't necessarily
assess the value of an item from an online description and picture. One user said,
“It's hard to tell the quality of jewelry online.” Another said, “I wouldn't buy a car
online — I couldn't commit to buying it without a test drive.” A third said, “I would
never buy a big ticket item, like a car or quality jewelry.”
In these cases, outside authentication of products was helpful, such as a gem report
for high-end jewelry or an accident and maintenance report for a used vehicle. In
addition, high-end sites require even better customer service, ready to answer a
user's question at any point of the shopping or purchase process.
20 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Willingness to Shop Online
22. Godiva's website included information about climate control packaging and
reassured users the items would “arrive in perfect condition, no matter how warm
the climate.”
22 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Willingness to Shop Online
24. Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
REASONS FOR E-COMMERCE VISITS
We started our research with a notebook study, where we asked users to write down
information about all of their e-commerce related activities over a six-week period.
The goal was to get a sense of what activities users were completing on e-commerce
sites, their reasons for visiting, and their likes and dislikes about the experience.
Respondents, all located in the United States, participated between the Thanksgiving
holiday in late November until New Year's Eve on December 31. This is traditionally a
heavy shopping time in the United States. However, this also meant users might be
more focused on gift-purchases than at other times of the year.
We asked users to note, "What was your main reason for visiting the site? What did
you hope to accomplish?" Ten users participated in the research, and recorded 263
site visits.
We wanted to collect information about what shoppers were already doing online, in
order to create realistic tasks for user testing. We categorized the respondents'
answers to the open-ended question. The most commonly given reason for visiting a
site was to look for a particular type of product. By that, we mean users were looking
for a vacuum, a book or an HDTV, but without any one vacuum, book or HDTV in
mind. Thirty-five percent of site visits were inspired by looking for a product type,
but not a particular product.
Twenty-seven percent of visits were aimed at finding a specific product, such as an
Adidas gold-foil shirt, Six Feet Under DVD set, a taillight for a car, or a Cleveland
Browns football jersey.
Nine percent of visits were inspired by knowledge of a sale, or hopes that there
might be a sale, and six percent of the holiday-time visits were looking for gifts.
(Note that the product type and specific product categories likely included gift-buying
activities: we only counted shopping activities as gifts when participants explicitly
stated they were looking for gifts without a particular item in mind.)
Other reasons for e-commerce visits were: because they received an email (5%), to
browse offerings (4%), for customer service or account-related reasons such as
checking order status (3%), to check prices (3%), to spend a gift card (2%),
because they had seen a catalog or a print advertisement (2%), and looking for a
coupon (1%).
Other reasons accounted for 4% of visits. These reasons included gift card buy-back,
to see if an item was from a store, to find movie times or make dinner reservations,
to enter a contest, to check on product information for a product already owned, and
to sign up for an email newsletter.
24 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
26. While a good site experience is crucial to all types of shoppers, different elements of
the shopping experience take on more significance depending on the users’ goal and
approach. Designing with these user types in mind will help the overall user
experience on the site.
Product-focused
Many shoppers go online knowing exactly what they want. They may need a
replacement for something they already have. They may have already researched an
item and know exactly what they want. They may have been to a store and seen the
product they want, but waited to buy it online. Regardless of the reason, these
shoppers are goal-oriented. They know what they need, and they want the site to
give it to them quickly.
In our study, our goal-oriented shoppers needed a James Bond DVD set, a
replacement laptop battery, a Cleveland Browns jersey, a taillight for a car, and
printer ink, among other things. These users weren’t looking to spend time leisurely
browsing a site, to analyze product information, or to carefully consider a purchase.
They wanted to find what they needed, get in and get out.
These shoppers may know where to get the item in question — they may go to an
online store they know that carries it, or the online presence of a store where they
saw the product. They may have purchased the item in the past, or bought
something similar.
They may use search engines to find the product, typing in the exact product they
want and picking a search result. They may even use meta-shopping engines or
review sites, such as CNET, Froogle, or Kelkoo to determine who has the product for
the best price.
Once at the site, all these users need to do is locate the right product, confirm that
it’s the right one, and buy it. Some won’t look at product descriptions at all. A quick
look at the name and product picture confirms the product is correct, and they’ll buy
it.
The goal here is speed. Get the user to the right product, let them know it’s the right
product, and let them checkout. The user may not be in a hurry, but he isn’t in the
mindset to linger and spend quality time with the site. He may notice an upsell
opportunity, but he’s more likely to continue on with his intended purchase without
distraction.
One user in our study had a product in mind when she visited FYE.com to spend a
gift card. She immediately searched for the name of the movie — Heartburn — and
was thrilled to see results. She’d had trouble locating the product previously and was
excited to see it was offered and available. She even ended up buying two copies —
one for herself and one for a friend.
26 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
28. It may seem counter-intuitive, but having browsers on your site is a good thing.
These are people who are choosing to spend time on your site, with your company,
with your brand. They are using the site as entertainment and inspiration, and
there’s a great opportunity there to turn these browsers into buyers. If users have a
consistently good experience on your site finding things they like and seeing the
latest products, they’ll be more likely to think of your site or even your physical
stores when they are ready to buy.
Browsers are not necessarily looking to make a purchase, but if they see something
they really like, they may turn into buyers.
Browsers may also be looking at the site because they are planning a trip to a store.
One user explained she looked at Banana Republic's site: “When I don't have time to
go shopping, I check out what's new or on sale. I check it before I go to the store.”
Another said of CostCo's site: “I did not buy a gift. They had a bunch of good stuff,
but I know I'll go in person in a few days and see the items up close.”
Make it easy for your customers to see what’s new, what’s popular and what’s on
sale. When shoppers come to the site on a regular basis, it’s not to see the same
information they saw the week before, it’s to see what’s changed. Browsers are
interested in the latest items, the latest deals, what other people are buying. Related
items and suggested products can help them navigate through the site, leading them
to new areas and new products. Top-selling products, most popular products, and
top-ranked products can all do well for browsers.
28 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
30. Keys for success for browsers are:
• Highlighting new or popular products, or items on sale
• Leading shoppers to new inventory through relevant related links and
recommended products
• Letting users share information about products they like
Researching
Researchers are goal-driven browsers. They plan to purchase, but the purchase may
happen today, tomorrow, next week or in six months. They’re looking online to
collect information about products and prices, and may be in any stage of research.
Researchers may be educating themselves about unknown product types, either for
a first time purchase or to purchase a gift. Or they may be well-educated about the
products they’re looking for, and trying to find the best price for the best
combination of features.
Shoppers may have a product category in mind and be looking for the best deal or
best product to meet their needs. Research may take place in several in-depth visits
or be a one-time quick decision between options on one site.
Researchers may visit multiple sites to gather information before committing to a
purchase. (And keep in mind that purchase may occur online or in a store.) Users
may also visit your site or others multiple times before making a purchase decision.
They may use one site for researching and another for the eventual purchase.
The goal is to turn these researchers into buyers. Trust is important in online
transactions. If users have seen that your site offers detailed product information,
excellent support, and clear navigation as they’ve been researching, they’re more
likely to buy from your site. If your site offers limited or unclear product information,
they won’t spend much time researching on it, nor will they think of it when it is time
to buy. The opportunity is to convert researchers to buyers, to become a
knowledgeable and trustworthy source of information and products.
The biggest key to a successful experience for researchers is to allow easy product
comparison. This does not mean creating large, elaborate comparison engines
(though some comparison engines work quite nicely). Facilitating comparisons can
be as simple as providing consistent information about products, so users can easily
determine what the differences are among them.
When sites do not offer comparison tools, users sometimes create their own. A user
on BuyDig.com opened two browser windows to compare product specifications side
by side. He said, “When you get close, you want to compare side by side. I'd also
open a new window to go to CNET.com to get reviews. That will tell me even more.”
Researchers are looking for a high degree of detail in product descriptions and
images. This means these additional sources of information should be available, but
don’t offer so much information up front that you scare your product-focused or
browsing shoppers away. Layer the information, but provide sufficient details to
answer the questions researchers have.
30 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
32. Keys for success for researchers are:
• Providing clear and detailed product descriptions
• Offering assistance around unfamiliar terminology or product features
• Listing user reviews
• Allowing easy comparison between products
• Saving users' shopping carts to allow shopping to continue on a
subsequent visit
Bargain-Hunting
A key reason that users shop on the Web is that they think they can get a better
deal online. Some shopping behavior is motivated by this intention — to find the best
deal possible.
Bargain-hunters may or may not have a particular item in mind when they start
shopping. And bargain-hunting behavior may impact any type of online shopper —
the product-focused shopper, browser or researcher.
One user admitted she tended to buy things solely because they were a bargain.
When hunting for other items, if she came across a good deal, she found it hard to
pass up.
The most important thing for a bargain hunter is to be able to locate deals. Prices
must be clearly listed. Sale items must not be hidden on the site, but listed alongside
full-price items, with savings highlighted. Available discounts must be easy to use,
such as coupon codes for money off or free shipping.
Some users immediately looked for deals and discounts on sites, checking Sale
sections first. We saw much of this behavior in purchase tasks, where users were
looking to get the most for the amount of money we gave them to spend.
The opportunity with bargain hunters is to turn them into repeat customers. Several
users in our notebook study referred to returning to a site specifically because of
knowledge of a sale, information they learned through catalogs, advertising, or email
messages. Sites should take advantage of bargain hunting behavior by sending
coupons, offering discounts for more expensive purchases, and offering free shipping
with minimum purchases.
Many shoppers may offer their email address if they know they will receive special
discounts or offers in return. One participant in our study who was spending a gift
card on a site signed up for the email newsletter 2 in order to receive a discount, and
used the discount for her purchase. A diary participant advised his nephew to sign up
for an email newsletter because, “The site is usually expensive and they don't offer
good discounts unless one has a coupon.”
2
For much more about the design and usability of email newsletters, please see our separate report
on this topic, available at http://www.nngroup.com/reports/newsletters
32 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
34. Many shoppers tried to take advantage of free shipping offers. One of users'
complaints about shopping online is paying an additional shipping charge. When sites
offered free shipping, even when a minimum purchase was involved, users often
tried to take advantage of such deals.
A handful of users in our study looked for coupon codes when making purchases,
leaving the site to do a quick search for any available discounts they could find on
the Web. Many others mentioned doing so when they were shopping on their own at
home or at work.
Keys for success for bargain-hunters are:
• Listing sale items alongside full priced inventory and providing an
obvious section for discounted products
• Clearly listing product prices and associated discounts and savings
• Allowing easy coupon redemption or applying discounts automatically
when criteria are met
One-Time Shoppers
One-time shoppers may be product-focused, browsing, bargain-hunting or
researching. They are often gift card recipients, gift card buyers, or gift buyers. They
may come with a goal in mind, such as a list of products the gift recipient is
interested in. They may simply be browsing to find the best product. Or they may be
researching and comparing across the site's inventory to buy the best item. They
may be looking to spend a gift card or aiming for a certain budget, so may want to
get the most for their money.
These shoppers are not familiar with the site or, possibly, the products it carries.
They have no interest in engaging with the site or learning more about it. They need
clear site navigation to get to products of interest and get a sense of site inventory
and selection. Clear product descriptions help them determine which items best fit
their needs. Company information can help them feel more confident giving an
unknown site their personal and financial information.
A main complaint of one-time shoppers was site registration. When users were
doubtful they would ever return to a site, they did not want to create a site
registration or have the site remember their personal data. They appreciated sites
that allowed them to make a purchase without requiring them to create an account.
34 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Designing for Different Types of Shoppers
36. How Users Shop
IN-STORE AND ONLINE, RATHER THAN IN-STORE OR ONLINE
Shoppers didn't distinguish between online shopping and in-store shopping. To them,
it was all shopping. Their shopping experiences might be fully online, fully in-store,
or a combination of the two. They expected consistency between online storefronts
and physical storefronts. Users are already combining the in-store and online
shopping experiences, so companies that are doing this well can reap the benefits.
Shoppers looked to websites to direct them to local stores. Users “pre-shopped,”
collecting information to make their in-store experience go more smoothly. One user
said, “My water softener overflowed in the middle of the night and flooded my
basement. I wanted to look up dehumidifiers online so I'd know where to purchase
locally.” Another said, “I'm looking for a vacuum. We have a local Hoover retailer. I
just wanted to pre-shop without running all over.” Another user looking for saw
blades checked prices online to decide where to go to make the purchase. Another
looked at a website to browse their selection and said, “They had a bunch of good
stuff, but I know I’ll go in person in a few days from now and see the items up
close.”
Users were confused when inventory online and off differed. One user said of
Sears.com, “It doesn't seem like they show everything [they have in stores] online.
There was not a big selection of items to choose from.” Another said, “I only found
two results. There weren't enough choices. I wanted to look at several. It was not a
very good range or selection or price.” Limited online inventory made some users
reluctant to pursue the purchase at their local store.
Stores could act as a back-up to online shopping and vice versa. If users couldn't
find what they needed in one location, they tried the other. One shopper explained,
“I was looking for a specific item — jeans my daughter likes from Arizona, a brand
found at Penney's. I've purchased these items before in a store. I did not find what I
wanted online, but we did go to a store and find the jeans.”
Others started in a store, but completed purchases online. Sometimes this was for
convenience or for better inventory selection. (This can be a good reason to have a
terminal in-store, to allow users to order right then and there, when they're ready to
spend their money.)
The website can show users more options and combinations than any showroom or
shop. For instance, one user was shopping for furniture at a local store, and went to
the showroom to sit in the various chairs and decide which one she wanted.
However, after making the decision, she returned home to look online at the various
color and style options available for the chair. The showroom only had one or two
examples, and had color and fabric swatches, but she couldn’t see what the chair
would look like. Online, there were images to show her what the different options
looked like. She said, “I wanted to see different style and fabric options for the
furniture all in one place.” Another looked to VictoriasSecret.com because “they have
a lot more available online than in stores.”
36 INFO@NNGROUP.COM How Users Shop
38. LOCAL DIFFERENCES: PATIENCE AND PRIORITIES
While our study was not large enough to declare regional or international differences
in e-commerce shopping behavior, we did note differences across our participants in
New York, Indiana and Georgia in the United States and in Hong Kong and London.
Our user base was small in both London and Hong Kong, but we noted some
differences between our participants. One key difference was in patience. Our users
in London were the most patient, waiting for what seemed to be interminable lengths
for pages or content to load, without complaint.
Our participants in the United States were somewhat less patient, waiting for pages
to load while complaining about the delay, or sometimes refreshing pages in an
attempt to speed up the process. Our users in Hong Kong were the least patient,
immediately refreshing pages, opening new browser windows or tabs, or even
visiting other sites to fill the time while slow pages opened.
Users also had regional concerns about shopping, depending on their location. In
Hong Kong, shoppers were concerned that delivery had to be more convenient than
shopping locally. They were particularly concerned that packages would not be left at
their homes if they were not present, and they would have to retrieve the package at
a local post office or from a local carrier. One said, “It's quite idiotic: You pay for
delivery cost, but in the end you are the one going to the post office to pick up the
large parcel.” Considering how convenient it was for many of our participants to shop
locally, with the wealth of shopping opportunities available in Hong Kong, they had to
have a good reason to want to buy online.
In London, our users voiced concern about convenience — would waiting for a
delivery be more convenient or less than driving to a local store. A user said, "This is
still quicker than getting in your car and driving to the shop." Another compared
shipping costs to “train fare or the cost of petrol.” Another said, “Things can be quite
traumatic with congestion charges. Better to site at home and do it on your own
time.” Another user complained, however, when she was on a site for an extended
period of time, “I could have driven down to the store quicker.”
Similarly, users in Georgia and Indiana in the United States sometimes contemplated
the cost, in terms of gas and time, to drive to a mall or a store versus buying an
item online and paying shipping charges. One said, “With gas prices high, I don't
mind paying for shipping.”
Users in New York, though surrounded with shopping opportunities like shoppers in
Hong Kong, were still likely to want to shop online for the convenience of not having
to carry items home. Many had methods for receiving packages, even when not at
home, through doormen, neighbors, or local stores who would accept deliveries for
them. However, we found our New Yorkers to be much more concerned with who
would be delivering the item — which carrier or delivery service. Several of our New
York participants had preferred carriers and would select specific delivery options to
ensure those carriers were used. Many wanted to know which carrier would deliver a
package, and not just when the package would arrive. A handful went so far as to
refuse to shop at sites that didn't use particular carriers or that only offered a
despised carrier.
The only other local difference we noted was specific to New York. We found many of
our New York participants entered NY or NYC as their city name, rather than typing,
“New York.” Very few sites accepted this as a valid entry.
38 INFO@NNGROUP.COM How Users Shop
40. DECIDING WHERE TO PURCHASE
Our study focused mainly on tasks where we asked users to visit specified e-
commerce sites. We also included 52 tasks where we gave users a goal, but did not
specify what site to visit to make the purchase. We wanted to see what users did to
pick a site, how or if they shopped around on several sites, how they evaluated
unknown sites, and how they made a purchase decision.
Though we encouraged users to act as though they were truly making a purchase,
we saw several users who said they would make purchases on sites that they also
expressed skepticism about, whether about the trustworthiness or the company,
quality of the product, pricing, or security of the site. Others seemed happy to
purchase on the first site they found, trying to complete our task quickly.
On average, users visited 4.8 sites per task to accomplish their goals. This number
includes repeat visits to the same site and visits to search engines. For instance, if a
user visited AcmeProducts.com, checked another site, did a Web search, and
returned to AcmeProducts.com, that was counted as visiting 4 sites.
The median number of visits per task was 2. In the 52 tasks attempted, users visited
only one site 29% of the time (15), and 2 sites 27% of the time (14). The highest
number of sites viewed during a task was 27.
The chart above shows the number of sites users visited during open-ended tasks.
In 52 tasks, users visited only one site 29% of the time, and visited two sites 27%
of the time. The maximum number of sites visited in one task was 27.
40 INFO@NNGROUP.COM How Users Shop
42. Users started open ended tasks by typing the URL of a known site 54% of the time
(28), and with a search engine 46% of the time (24).
Of those users who went directly to a known site by typing in a URL (28 users), 15
bought from the first site without visiting any other sites. Five additional users
bought from the first site after visiting other sites as well — in other words, they
returned to the first site they visited to complete the task. Eight users, or 29% of
users who went to a site first, ended up completing the task at a site other than their
first choice.
Seventy-one percent of users who started at a known site ended up completing the
task on that site.
42 INFO@NNGROUP.COM How Users Shop
44. Of the 24 users who started the open-ended task by going to a search engine, 35%
(8) completed the task on the first search result they visited. Another 4% (1 user)
returned to the first result visited to make a purchase. All other users, 61%,
completed the task on a site other than the first search result visited.
When they started with a search, rather than a known site, it indicated less
familiarity with the product in many cases, so it is not surprising that it took more
research to make a decision.
71% of users who navigated directly to a site stuck with that site, ultimately
purchasing from it. But when users started with a search, they bought from the first
search result visited only 39% of the time.
Of those users who searched first, half clicked on a natural search result first, and
half clicked on a paid search result first.
44 INFO@NNGROUP.COM How Users Shop
46. A user wasn't sure where to go to find blenders on Cooking.com. She wanted to see
a category called Blenders, but only saw Bar Blenders. She never clicked the
category, and thought her only choices were the featured items, "a $500 bar
blender or a hand blender. I just want a $50 regular blender."
Cross-Referencing
Products should be cross-referenced as appropriate, so shoppers can find items in
multiple related categories. When users don't find what they want in one category,
they don't necessarily look to another related category. They assume if no item is
shown, no item exists.
Featured or Full Inventory?
We saw users erroneously think site inventory was limited because of the
presentation of category pages and product listing pages. When such pages showed
featured items rather than full inventory, users sometimes misinterpreted the pages.
They thought the items shown represented the site's full collection, rather than a
limited view of featured items.
46 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Key Findings