Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

qubit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#41

Post by dkersten »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #30
Iv wrote: post #25

tl;dr: The 3 items possibly statistically significant are: - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) - Saying other people are watching this product (+2.3%) - Time limited offer (+1.5%) I did not see mention of combining these factors. I doubt the gains are cumulative. My main takeaway is that most optimizations are not worthy if you have the opportunity to spend your time/money…

> I doubt the gains are cumulative Why do you doubt that? Aren't they presented as independent results? > bring value to the consumer This is vague, but also a separate goal. Perhaps another way of representing customer value is churn reduction. In any case, it could be appropriate to invest in gaining 3% more revenue per additional customer, then use the gains to invest in more customer value. > #1 and #3 are dick m…

Real scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer.

I assume what was meant is that they're dick moves if done purely for sales optimisation (i.e. If they are lying) and not if the scarcity or time limitations actually naturally exist.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#43

Post by robbiemitchell »

ronack wrote: post #42

This is interesting but I definitely question some of the results, for instance reporting a negative impact for changing search results. Many businesses have been built on improving conversion through search result optimization.

I interpreted this as them creating/improving on-site search. Not related to adwords or display optimization.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#44

Post by lucaspm98 »

_jal wrote: post #37
gruez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or flight/hotel/car rental booking websites. Google flights is a notable exception.

The easiest way to make me go somewhere else is to adopt these tactics. They make me feel like I'm locked in a battle of wits with an autistic con-artist, or maybe a suspicious Fed - if weird rituals are not faithfully observed under conditions of vast information asymmetry and artificial stress, I will suffer. There's no hope of avoiding that with airlines for me - I don't fly enough to avoid the prole line. But lit…

The people with the knowledge of these tricks are so few that unfortunately in most cases the additional revenue is too much to keep the minority happy. It's fascinating to look at ecommerce storefronts and search for all of the subtle tactics they're trying to use on you.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#45

Post by ronack »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #43
ronack wrote: post #42

This is interesting but I definitely question some of the results, for instance reporting a negative impact for changing search results. Many businesses have been built on improving conversion through search result optimization.

I interpreted this as them creating/improving on-site search. Not related to adwords or display optimization.

Sure, but what were the improvements to on-site search? More relevant results? Tweaking the display? I know from experience that improving search result relevance in e-commerce has a (sometimes drastic) improvement in conversion.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#46

Post by Theodores »

1k wrote: post #35

I'm surprised free shipping has a negative impact on revenue. Worst case I imagine would be that revenue would increase but with less or negative profit. Likewise most GUI-related tweaks seem to have a negative effect (mobile friendliness, search, navigation). Assuming it gives a better mobile experience, why would anyone spend less - unless the goal is to get them off mobile and onto the desktop.

I think that the GUI-related tweaks must be on sites that are done properly and well established. For these guys the customers know what to expect so a change in design will be received negatively by people that are used to the old site. Although not in ecommerce, the redesign of the BBC site is like that, people want to cling on to the old site and instinctively don't like the new. In time they adjust or get a touchscreen computer and 'get' the changes and what the redesign is about.

Most people are working on sites other than the top ones. With these websites where customers are not regulars, change to the GUI is received differently. Sensible updates to the UX will convert.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#47

Post by daveguy »

Iv wrote: post #25

tl;dr: The 3 items possibly statistically significant are: - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) - Saying other people are watching this product (+2.3%) - Time limited offer (+1.5%) I did not see mention of combining these factors. I doubt the gains are cumulative. My main takeaway is that most optimizations are not worthy if you have the opportunity to spend your time/money…

> Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client)

This one is interesting. When doing product design the opposite is important. I expect it depends on what you're selling. Knowing there are 20,000 of an electrical component available vs 20 is a good thing. Availability weighs a lot more than: Quick! Get the last one!

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#48

Post by ourmandave »

Iv wrote: post #25

tl;dr: The 3 items possibly statistically significant are: - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) - Saying other people are watching this product (+2.3%) - Time limited offer (+1.5%) I did not see mention of combining these factors. I doubt the gains are cumulative. My main takeaway is that most optimizations are not worthy if you have the opportunity to spend your time/money…

Hotels.com uses #2 ("X people have looked at hotels in this area in the last hour.") and it feels like a dick move.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#49

Post by kossae »

nik736 wrote: post #39
cylinder wrote: post #26

Well, running a rudimentary eBay store you realize these things help pretty quickly, but it's good to have data. However... Starting a new e-commerce property? Good luck finding traffic in anything profitable. Amazon and other Giants dominate search rankings so I'm not sure how you will find your traffic unless you create a new niche. Maybe you're a thought leader in a hobbyist space, that can work... But you're not…

That's simply false. There are always categories or "side"-categories that can be highly profitable and big stores only care about as a side business (small category in their store). Being a small category for a huge store means they don't care about that category too much but it doesn't mean there isn't a lot of cash to be made. I've helped several companies to build an online store that did exactly that and they ar…

Agreed. I work for a company in such a niche and there are definitely side-niche markets still out there for people to find and dominate, sometimes even on SEO alone. A small piece of a huge pie is still a very large piece to me.

Re: What works in e-commerce – A meta-analysis of online experiments [pdf]

#50

Post by accountyaccount »

Iv wrote: post #25

tl;dr: The 3 items possibly statistically significant are: - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) - Saying other people are watching this product (+2.3%) - Time limited offer (+1.5%) I did not see mention of combining these factors. I doubt the gains are cumulative. My main takeaway is that most optimizations are not worthy if you have the opportunity to spend your time/money…

AirBnB does a lot of these — and they aren't necessarily dick moves when you're looking at something with limited availability.

If 1,000 people have looked at an AirBnB listing, it does actually make sense to book faster than a property 3 people were looking at.

Post reply on HN