Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » In The M-Commerce Page Load World: Target, Sears Slow; Amazon, QVC Fast
advertisement
advertisement

In The M-Commerce Page Load World: Target, Sears Slow; Amazon, QVC Fast

Written by Evan Schuman
December 1st, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

As the percentage of shopping done through the small lens of a mobile phone soars, almost to the point of being meaningful, retailers should start to calculate page load time differently. For the first half of November—when Web performance tracking company Gomez took a look—Target, Buy.com, Sears and 1-800-Flowers had the most catch-up to do, while Amazon, QVC, Newegg and Overstock fared nicely.

The secret to the most successful mobile sites is pure simplicity, the lesson that Google’s homepage tried teaching the industry. For example, I often find that Amazon’s mobile app beats—with many seconds to spare—my much higher powered desktop riding over the same broadband connection looking at Amazon’s Web site, so the idea that it would come out on top is not surprising. Making this accomplishment even more impressive, according to Gomez, is that—in general—chains’ mobile site page load averages are more than “50 percent slower than the average response times” of those same chains’ traditional Web sites.

Gomez, which tracked the top retailers from November 1 through November 15 looked at both availability (where the object of the game is to get as close to 100 percent as possible and where the average was 98.74 percent) and response time (where smaller numbers rule and where the average was 4.7 seconds). Amazon won in both categories, with a 99.86 percent availability rating and a 2.85 second response time. Indeed, the top three retailers in both categories were the same and in the same sequence: Amazon was first, followed by QVC (99.84 percent and 2.94 seconds) and Newegg (99.62 percent and 3.33 seconds).

Things got slightly more varied on the wrong side of the tracks performances, although three retailers (Buy.com, Sears and 1-800-Flowers) controlled the bottom rankings. In response time, the weakest four retailers were Target (6.96 seconds), Buy.com (6.22 seconds), Sears (6.07 seconds) and 1-800-Flowers (5.92 seconds). In availability, the weakest four were Buy.com (95.47 percent), Sears (96.28 percent), 1-800-Flowers (97.66 percent) and Target (98.17 percent).

Rounding out the list, for availability percent and response time: Overstock (99.49 percent and 3.36 seconds); Best Buy (99.46 percent and 3.44 seconds); Walmart (99.09 percent and 3.84 seconds); Victoria’s Secret (99.25 percent and 4.93 seconds); Barnes and Noble (99.59 percent and 5.23 seconds); Nordstrom (98.95 percent and 5.44 seconds); and Musician’s Friend (99.58 percent and 5.73 seconds).

To demonstrate that everything changes quickly in the mobile realm, Gomez looked at availability and response time again about two weeks later–during the post Thanksgiving sales insanity (November 27 through November 30)–and saw very different results. First, everybody’s performance generally improved, with the 98.74 percent availability average improving to 99.51 percent and the 4.7 second response time average getting a boost to an average of 3.78 seconds.

Second, Amazon dropped way down in both categories and Best Buy shot way up (taking the number one position in both categories, with 100 percent availability and a 2.19 second response time). Newegg—number three during the initial review time—still did quite well, holding on to the same spot on both lists with 100 percent availability and a 2.49 second response time. Come to think of it, with 100 percent availability, Newegg really should be tied for first in availability, along with the four other retailers that scored 100 percent (Best Buy, Buy.com, Overstock and QVC).

The complete late November availability results, in order, were: BestBuy; Buy.com; Newegg; Overstock; QVC; Barnes & Noble (99.90 percent); Musician’s Friend (99.90 percent); Target (99.90 percent); Amazon (99.81 percent); Nordstrom (99.81 percent); 1-800-Flowers (98.86 percent); Dell (98.66 percent); Walmart (98.16 percent) and Sears (98.08 percent).

The complete late November response time results, in order, were: Best Buy; QVC (2.2 seconds); Newegg (2.49 seconds); Overstock (2.67 seconds); Amazon (2.93 seconds); Walmart (3.23 seconds); Nordstrom (3.54 seconds); Barnes & Noble (4.21 seconds); Dell (4.35 seconds); 1-800-Flowers (4.55 seconds); Buy.com (4.61 seconds); Sears (4.9 seconds); Musician’s Friend (5.11 seconds) and Target (5.95 seconds).


advertisement

One Comment | Read In The M-Commerce Page Load World: Target, Sears Slow; Amazon, QVC Fast

  1. Jack Taylor Says:

    The Target vs. Amazon results are really interesting, seeing as how Amazon runs Target’s site. Looks like someone missed some clauses in the contract on performance…

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...