Ecommerce

The psychology of waiting (and 5 things you can do to make online checkout feel faster)

Americans spend an estimated 37 billion hours per year waiting in lines. That’s 118 hours per person (including babies, though I have no idea what they’re standing in lines for), which is pretty mindblowing. So it’s not surprising that there’s a large – and growing – field of research dedicated to studying the psychology of waiting. A recent trip down this research rabbit hole yielded some interesting insights about in-store versus online waiting.

In-store waiting vs. online waiting

As I wrote in a recent post on the Radware blog, 70% of online shopping carts are abandoned before checkout. A recent survey of US shoppers found that slow load times was the number one cause for half of those abandoned carts. Unfortunately, there aren’t comparable numbers for in-store shopping cart abandonment (the only measurement tool a bricks-and-mortar store has is a security camera that counts foot traffic and compares it with number of purchases), but it’s safe to hazard a guess that it’s not as high as 70%.

When it comes to standing in checkout lines, there are a few other points of dissimilarity between in-store shoppers and online shoppers:

In-store Online
A variety of potential service systems (first-come-first-served, single server vs. multiple servers, reservation-based, express line options, etc.) Perception of instantaneous service
Can see lineup(s) and estimate wait time (however erroneously) Cannot estimate transaction time in advance
Can exercise several choices when faced with perceived slow lineups: refuse to enter, enter but leave before checkout, or jockey among different lineups Only one option when faced with long wait times: abandon cart
Can be influenced by friendliness of checkout staff, which mitigates negative impact of standing in line Cannot be influenced by a friendly “Thanks for your order” confirmation page

 

However, both types of shopper do have one thing in common:

In-store Online
Associates long wait times with poor customer service, which negatively affects likelihood of returning Associates long wait times with poor customer service, which negatively affects likelihood of returning

In short, the online checkout process is characterized by uncertainty.

This is caused by relative lack of feedback about your transaction status, coupled with a lack of choice in terms of how you can respond to long wait times. In a physical store, you know the line is going to move eventually, and that if you get desperate you can hop on another line. If a page hangs during an online transaction, it introduces uncertainty that you’ll ever be able to complete your purchase. (In one survey, 44% of respondents said that page slowdowns during checkout made them anxious about the success of the transaction.) And line jockeying isn’t an option on the internet.

Shopping cart anxiety

Common-sense things we know about waiting…

  • As waiting time increases, satisfaction decreases.
  • As perceived or recalled wait duration increases, the wait becomes less acceptable.

Obvious-sounding stuff, right? These findings more or less make sense because they appeal to what we believe to be our common sense.

However, common sense is pretty thin on the ground…

…as you see when you look at the larger body of wait time research. We’re riddled with irrational feelings about waiting:

Infographic: How internet users perceive time

And best of all:

  • Even if we go into a transaction knowing our tendency to be prey to the illusions described above, most of us will still fall prey to them.

Takeaways

If you’re visiting this blog, you obviously care about delivering a better experience to whoever your users are. You’re probably already working to make your pages faster – through applying optimization best practices, deploying a CDN, etc. That’s a crucial beginning. But there’s more.

1. See what your users see: Mentally increase your measurement numbers by 35%.

Understand that the start render time (or load time, or whatever performance metric you focus on) numbers that you see in your performance measurement data may be the real picture, but your real picture doesn’t match your users’ perceived picture. If your pages load in 5 seconds, the average user remembers it as feeling like closer to 7 seconds.

2. Ensure that every page in the transaction is fast.

A lot of site owners focus on optimizing their landing pages and product pages, but as this case study shows, slowing down pages later in a transaction can cause the abandonment rate to jump from 67% to 80%. Every page matters.

3. Better yet, simplify the transaction process down to a single page.

Implementing one-click checkout, like Amazon, is one way to to this. Another is to build your checkout as a single-page application using Ajax, so that resource requests and responses happen in the background, beyond the user’s notice.

4. Know when to use spinners and progress bars.

And know how to design them. (Also know when not to use them. A progress bar on a page that loads in less than 5 seconds will actually make that page feel slower.) There are some solid best practices here.

5. Make the perceived value match (or better, surpass) the wait.

If long wait times are necessary, ensure that you’re delivering something that has value that’s commensurate with the wait. A good example of this is travel websites. When you’re searching for the best hotel rates, most of us don’t mind waiting several seconds. We rationalize the wait because we assume that the engine is searching a massive repository of awesome travel deals in order to give us the very best results.

I’m still deep in this rabbit hole. If you have any more good research to throw down, I’d love to check it out.

Related posts:

Thank you.

I’ll come right to it: As of this week, I’m retiring.

Between the birth of my third child and preparing the move to Radware, the past sixteen months have been exhilarating. And, like most exhilarating experiences, it’s been exhausting. I’m tapped out. It’s time to unplug and recharge. I know — those metaphors contradict each other. That’s what happens when you’re tired. :) I’ll be taking an extended break. For how long, I can’t say — possibly till my wife gets sick of having me around the house. Maybe a bit longer.

Radware has a sustainable vision for our technology and the chops to execute that vision. I’m looking forward to watching and cheering from the sidelines.

Kent Alstad – one of Strangeloop’s cofounders, our former CTO, author of all our patents, and the most knowledgeable person I’ve ever met when it comes to hardcore FEO – will continue to drive innovation on the product side of things at Radware. Kent is also an awesome speaker, so you can look forward to seeing more of him on the conference circuit and on this blog.

On the performance evangelism side, Tammy Everts will be taking over here on the blog, as well as with speaking engagements and everything that goes with that. Under her leadership, you’ll continue to enjoy the high quality of research, insights, and industry news that I hope you’ve come to associate with this site. Some of you already know Tammy, but if not, you should know that she’s been working closely with me behind the scenes for the past three years. This blog has been very much a collaborative effort, and I want to publicly thank Tammy for both her ideas and her much-needed editing skills. Before coming to Strangeloop, she had a long background in user experience. She brings a really cool perspective on the human side of performance, and I know she’s already planning some exciting new research in that area, as well as continuing to cover the business and technical aspects. I’ve also pestered her into reviving her semi-dormant Twitter account, so I encourage you to follow her there and force her to post. :)

Radware has also taken the forward-looking step of training a global team of technical experts who can preach our technology in every major market. With dozens of performance-related Meetup groups popping up around the world, I’m very excited about the prospect of connecting with as many new people as possible — something Strangeloop, as a smaller company, was always limited in doing.

People keep asking me what’s next for me, and the answer isn’t that glamorous. I’m sure I’ll return to the tech world some day. Startup fever is like malaria: it keeps coming back. But for now, my plans include enjoying more time with my beautiful wife and our three boys, taking long walks with my dog, and spending some quality time connecting with my garden. (I have some ambitious pond-building plans.)

If I tried to thank everyone who’s supported me over the past several years, I’d be here all day, so let me just say thank you to everyone, including you.

Three web performance SLAs every site owner should consider

In recent podcast chats with Tim Morrow, Mark Jennings, and Geoffrey Smalling, the topic of performance service level agreements keeps coming up, and I think the topic merits a post. Here’s why.

With a good SLA, everyone wins.

Clients are protected from poor service, while also gaining a clear understanding of what to realistically expect from their supplier.

Suppliers are protected from unrealistic client demands, while also benefiting from having a consistent yardstick for meeting expectations, as well as an incentive for exceeding expectations.

Sounds great, right? So why haven’t more companies adopted this practice? A bunch of reasons, all of which are pretty understandable, such as: fear of accountability, inadequate tools for reliably measuring performance, lack of management buy-in, negative past experiences with poor/unrealistic SLAs. But if we truly care about delivering a top-tier online experience, we need to get over these obstacles.

There are three key areas that would benefit from having a solid service level agreement in place:

1. Customer-facing performance SLA

I’m not the first person to champion this idea. People like Jonathein Klein and Stephen Thair have been making eloquent calls for this kind of public performance contract over the last couple of years. To be frank, I don’t think most customers would ever read it (though if asked, the average person would probably tell you they think it’s a good idea because speed matters to them).

But I think the real value of this kind of performance SLA is internal: making a public declaration is a potentially great motivator for making your team accountable for delivering on your promise.

Back in 2011, Jonathan shared an example of what I still think is the best performance SLA I’ve come across:

“The homepage of our site will load in under 3 seconds measured at the 80th percentile via synthetic tests running in New York, LA, Seattle, and Miami every 30 minutes. We will measure this SLA at 8:00AM every morning and base it off the last 24 hours of data.”

This is a perfect yardstick — it’s short, snappy, and quantifiable. Whether you’re a developer or an executive, this is something you can get behind. If you’re looking for a template for your own SLA, this is a great place to start.

2. Third-party provider SLA

Third-party scripts are one of the most common points of failure for sites. At best, unoptimized scripts can slow down your load time, sometimes by many precious seconds. At worst, third-party outages can stall page load completely.

The average top ecommerce site contains 7 third-party scripts, with some sites containing up to 25 scripts. Yet despite this proliferation, most third-party providers don’t offer real-time monitoring of their scripts, nor do they offer meaningful service level agreements (SLAs). In my experience, the only way most people discover third-party SPOFs is by accident, when they visit their own sites.

Sure, you can defer many of your scripts so that they load last, but this isn’t always an option — for instance, when it comes to your third-party ads.

I dream of a world where all third-party providers offer clear performance service level agreements to site owners. In my ideal world, these SLAs would:

  • Express their annual uptime guarantee as a percentage (ideally, as close to 100% as possible).
  • Describe the process for reimbursing site owners (if site owners are paying for the service provided by the script) if uptime drops below the SLA guarantee.

Tag management companies have been jumping into the fray, with several vendors stating a clear focus on performance. This is a great start. My hope is that, as site owners become more educated about the importance of page speed, they’re going to start demanding properly optimized scripts, as well as better monitoring, reporting, and accountability.

For more detailed tips on how to create a meaningful third-party SLA, check out this great post over at Catchpoint.

3. Cloud provider SLA

The cloud offers huge benefits, but it also introduces a huge new area of vulnerability. It’s understandable that we’re tempted to demand control over the performance of our cloud-based applications, because this (or at least the illusion of it) is what we had before the cloud.

This demand is ultimately unrealistic. However, it is realistic to expect that, in exchange for losing some of the infrastructural control you used to have before you deployed your apps to the cloud, you should be able to ask your provider for more visibility and assurances in how their infrastructure will perform for you.

Here’s what it’s fair to ask from your cloud provider:

  • Analytics tools – You should continue to use the performance monitoring tools you already use to monitor your app performance with (WebPagetest, Keynote, Gomez, etc.), but you also need a new visibility toolset (that your cloud provider should help you with) so you can do root cause analysis over parts of the infrastructure that you don’t have control over or visibility into.
  • Detailed performance clauses in your service level agreements – Some cloud SLAs contain a performance clause that addresses availability, but speed is every bit as important as — and possibly more important than — uptime. This clause needs to spell out how your concerns about site speed will be addressed, should they occur.

I’m very curious to learn about other people’s successes and failures with performance SLAs. Have you come across an SLA that rocked your world? Is there another type of performance-related SLA I haven’t considered? Feel free to share in the comments, or email me directly at joshua [[at]] webperformancetoday [[dot]] com.

Related posts:

More new findings: Top ecommerce sites are 22% slower than they were last year

Let me say that again, because this is a staggering fact: The world’s top ecommerce sites are 22% slower than they were last year.

In December 2011, the median load time for a site in the Alexa Retail 2000 was 5.94 seconds. Just twelve months later, the median was 7.25 seconds. At this rate of growth, this number could hit almost 9 seconds by the end of this year.

Web page load time changes: December 2011 to December 2012

This was the key finding of our brand-new quarterly report (yes, a new report, not to be confused with last week’s report about web performance in the EU) on ecommerce web performance. If you’re new to these reports, since 2010 we’ve been measuring the load time, page composition, and best practice implementation of the same set of 2,000 leading online retailers, as ranked by Alexa. The goal is to learn how pages are changing over time and what impact, if any, these changes have on per-page performance. The results have been eye-opening.

I have to confess that I frequently feel like that tiresome guy at the party who keeps saying the same things over and over again. Pages are getting slower… pages are getting bigger… the gap between load times and user expectations is getting wider almost by the week. If you’re reading this out there and saying to yourself, “I can’t believe that Bixby guy is going on about this AGAIN,” then forward the next part of this post to five people you think could really benefit from it. If enough people internalize this message, maybe I’ll shut up.*

Three performance myths I would give anything to permanently bust:

Myth #1. Pages are, de facto, getting faster.

What with our better systems, networks, and browsers, pages must be getting faster, right? Everyone believes this instinctively, because most of us seem to be hardwired to believe that technology solves problems rather than creating new ones. But as I said at the top of this post, the quickly emerging fact is that pages seem to not just be getting slower, they’re getting slower at an alarming rate. (Optional: You may choose to take this finding as proof that we shouldn’t always trust our instincts. :) )

Myth #2. Users are more or less satisfied with the status quo.

“People are used to pages that take 5-8 seconds to load. They don’t mind that much.” I still hear this on a regular basis. Site owners rationalize that, because they’re not hearing a lot of complaints, their visitors are happy… or at least happy enough. But as numerous case studies have shown, people talk with their wallets. Faster sites earn more. And user surveys over the years are telling us that people’s expectations for a speedy online experience are continually growing:

Web Page Load Time: User expectations 200-2012

Myth #3. Browser development is more than capable of mitigating the factors, such as page size and complexity, that are causing pages to slow down.

This belief is widely held, even among technical folks. Again, looking to our findings, we saw that for all three browsers, median load times slowed down by anywhere from 3% to 12% in just six months. This downward trend isn’t a browser development issue. Instead, it’s an indicator that despite browser vendors’ huge commitment to speed, development can’t keep pace with the demands of bigger and increasingly complex web pages.
Browser performance: 2011 to 2012

Takeaway: Pass it on.

I am extremely happy that Radware is committed to continuing the tradition of releasing these quarterly  “state of the union” reports. As time passes, we’re gaining some invaluable insights. Based on these latest results, I’m very curious to see what our Summer 2013 report will hold.

I urge you to download this report (and the infographics, too). And I was only slightly kidding when I suggested that you forward this post to people who need to have a few performance myths dispelled. Our community does a lot of preaching to the choir. What seems basic to us is not necessarily basic to the rest of the world. We need to get out there and make sure these simple messages are being heard.

*Maybe.

Related posts:

New findings: Typical leading European commerce site takes 7.04 seconds to load

Last fall, at Velocity London, I had a really great talk with Stephen Thair, who is a UK-based web performance consultant, Velocity committee member, WebPerfDays organizer, and all-around knowledgeable guy. Among other things, we talked about how frustrating it can be for performance pros based in Europe to preach outside their community.

As Stephen said:

“I guess it’s a bit frustrating in the UK at the moment. One of the things that I found is that we haven’t yet got that killer web performance case study in one of the big major retailers. So we are still, I think, a bit in the evangelical stage. We are still trying to get the message out there. There are still a lot of websites in the UK that don’t even have gzip turned on.”

So we set out to help fill that gap. In December of 2012, working with Radware (our soon-to-be parent company) in conjunction with our partners at Level 3 in Europe, we studied the page speed and composition of 400 top European retailers, as ranked by Internet Retailer magazine, to see how these sites would load for visitors using Chrome 23 (the most popular browser in the EU at the time of testing) via the test server in Amsterdam. (We chose the Amsterdam location because it allowed us to test across all major browsers.) The report was released today.

While the results may not be shocking if you’ve been paying close attention to this space, they may come as an eye-opener to online retailers in the EU. Our chief finding was this:

The median page took more than 7 seconds to load.

Depending on whom you ask, the average internet user expects web pages to load in less than 3 seconds, 2 seconds, or even 400 milliseconds. The last time the average person reported being cool with 7-second load times was around 2001.

The survey also found that:

  • 1 out of 4 pages took more than 10 seconds to load.
  • 1 out of 3 pages contained more than 100 resources.
  • 79% of sites don’t use a recognized CDN. (A “recognized CDN” refers to any CDN listed in the extensive directory of CDNs maintained by WebPagetest.)
  • Speaking to Stephen’s point about gzip at the top of this post, 1 out of 5 sites failed to implement text compression, a relatively simple technique that delivers easy, significant performance gains.

Why you should care about these findings

I may be pointing out the obvious, but it may need to be pointed out: these expectations are universal. Internet users in the EU do not have lower performance expectations than users in North America. These findings should be a wake-up call for European site owners. (Not that North American site owners should be resting easy. Last fall, we found that the median leading US commerce home page took almost 7 seconds to load.)

Download the report: State of the Union: European Ecommerce Page Speed and Web Performance

Related posts: