Hello!
To use the forum, login or register above.
(If you are already logged in above, please click here)
Proposed Changes to Store Minimums
To reduce customer friction and disappointment, and to unify the experience across Brick Owl stores, we propose to develop the following two ideas, and would be interested to hear your comments.
1. If a customer has not met the minimum order total, or the minimum lot average for the order, allow the customer to bypass the totals by paying half of the difference. So for example, if a customer had a cart of £5, in a store with a limit of £10, they could pay £2.50 to checkout. This charge would become part of the Shipping and Handling.
2. Capping of the minimum lot average to £1
All figures above are in GBP, they would be translated accordingly to the store currency.
The aim of these changes is to reduce abandoned carts as a result of filling up a cart and then being unable to checkout and also to make the catalogue rankings a fairer playing field by reducing price distortion as a result of large minimum lot averages.
1. If a customer has not met the minimum order total, or the minimum lot average for the order, allow the customer to bypass the totals by paying half of the difference. So for example, if a customer had a cart of £5, in a store with a limit of £10, they could pay £2.50 to checkout. This charge would become part of the Shipping and Handling.
2. Capping of the minimum lot average to £1
All figures above are in GBP, they would be translated accordingly to the store currency.
The aim of these changes is to reduce abandoned carts as a result of filling up a cart and then being unable to checkout and also to make the catalogue rankings a fairer playing field by reducing price distortion as a result of large minimum lot averages.
Powered by Vanilla
Comments
I don't personally care about (2) beyond saying that I genuinely think minimum lot average was a bad idea from the very beginning. It was only ever going to cause confusion for some customers which works against the reputation of BO as a whole.
I think a better idea to both proposals is that if a customer is unable to checkout because of that particular store's conditions, be it a failure to meet a minimum lot average or the minimum order total, or both, BO should allow the user to move the cart to another store and show them which other stores (in the same region) could service it. This would potentially stop the cart from being abandoned and might help encourage stores to keep MLAs and MOTs to reasonable figures without actually needing to impose arbitrary limits. Those stores not wanting to deal with small carts don't have to, those stores that don't mind small carts will get additional orders, customers get the parts they want and BO gets commission from an otherwise lost cart.
although the last one is (perhaps) difficult to do as no store will be able to match exactly that cart, and would seem like a punishment for the store......
I dont really understand why a minimum order amount isnt enough?
I personally never understand a minimum lot average, its beyond the point of a hobby platform.
Sure, im not the happiest camper with an order of 150 lots and 1 item per lot, in the mix its all good. Most of the times buyers with small orders or lot amounts grow to become (slightly) bigger buyers, also we found that the buyers are or can be, new to a platform like this, perhaps a bit distrust (not a word i guess) and place a small order to check it out.
A minimum order amount is easyer to understand and to work with, although i not really that also, its neccessery to cover some basic costs.
Just my two cents
Idea #1
We say this is not a good idea. it may be perceived as a fee on the buyers end. We may be biased though due to not having lot minimums. The entire feature itself causes confusion for buyers thus we are against this feature in its entirety.
VOTE: NO
Idea #2
This depends on your perspective. As a buyer, I would love this due to the stores that I could now purchase at because I did not previously meet the minimum now opens up. Plus now I would run into less issues when buying.
On the sellers view, I know some raise it on purpose, sometimes temporarily to slow down order due to they may be busy or overwhelmed with current orders. Instead of completely shutting down for business, only have larger orders come through until they catch up. We have not done this so it wont effect us, just thinking of other sellers. There are both advantages and disadvantages with this.
VOTE: ABSTAIN
Thank you,
Chris And Dawn
Partnership Owners of Budget-kids.com
I don't have lot limits anyway but it sounds like stores that are doing so may want to consider how it is affecting their business model. If lot limits are causing lost customers, is that worth more or less than the extra time needed to fulfill large lot orders?
I have had only 2(?) questions about my lot limits (set at $0.55 now, used to be $0.45). One buyer made the purchase, one didn't.
Personally, I have lot limits because I like to be able to provide fast service, even to high lot low dollar orders, but that is not always possible. I have considered removing my lot average and reinstating my minimum buy somewhere in the $5-$10 range. But honestly I get so many orders under $1. That I think I would be doing a disservice to my buyers to suddenly have a minimum of at least 5 times that.
On #2. I personally don't see myself ever raising my lot average to above $1 or whatever the equivalent would be. But I have low overhead myself. For me it is more time than anything. I think that if sellers have their lot average set high, and they are then expected to cut that in half. They might in turn increase shipping costs substantially to cover this, and that in turn will affect ALL buyers.
I always like to leave the power in the hands of the buyer. Some sellers favor bulk lots, but to me this does not favor the buyer because they are forced to purchase A, B and C in exact quantities. Maybe they need more of A and less of C. I know that a lot of buyers prefer bulk lots to lot averages, but I think that is because they don't have to do the math.
What if we gave the buyer choices:
Your cart does not meet the store minimum lot average of $1. How would you like to proceed.
Reset cart quantities (automatically calculated by the system)
Reset cart quantities manually
Find an add on --here are some suggestions (link)
Pay a fee for the difference of $x
@Lawrence
Thank you for putting some thought into this, and giving everyone the chance to give their input.
Katie
I think that if it was presented to buyers along the lines of "you can checkout without reaching the store's minimum order requirements by agreeing to pay an order handling fee of £n". Any reasonable person would likely understand the logic behind the option. Let's face it, everone's in a hurry, so the quickest route through checkout is often the most attractive.
But is it possible to have the capability to give the customer a password to bypass the minimums? That way it can be in a case-by-case basis, and the customer and the seller have a chance to interact. The bypass password could work for all minimum order issues not just for lot limit issues but also for minimum order totals...
My minimum order amount is low but I still have a customer occasionally contact me to complete an order under my minimum. It would be nice to just give them a bypass password instead of having to change my minimum order amount, wait for their order to come in, then changing it back.
Melissa
I would rather people just set their minimum store order to what they deem is a reasonable amount for them vs having lot limits at all. The lot limits will always be a difficult theory to convey to less knowledgeable customers. This site's strong point seems to be drawing in newer customers....so making it easier for them over all would be my goal, which again would be eliminating lot limts.
Another thing that might help is a simple lot limit's setting (free to set) like 20 or 50 lot's max in an order, buyer gets a warning when he tries to go over the pre-setted max. lot 's
@Admin: would such be an option to be added on?
Minimum lot average was supposed to be a rarely-used alternative but it seems more stores are turning to it. I said at the beginning that it would confuse customers and some might never return. From what some sellers are saying this is actually happening. BO is no longer the easy-to-compare-prices alternative to BL that it began life as.
Per-lot minimums are not intuitive. Even if it's so well explained that anyone will understand the concept (easier said than done!), it remains an alien concept in the world of online shopping. I wouldn't be in favor of making it more complicated, including by allowing to bypass the minimum by paying some kind of penalty.
A capping of the per-lot minimum seems reasonable. A store with a $10/lot minimum would prove very frustrating for customers trying to checkout after filling up a cart.
For #1, yes it will be confusing to a few, but it would give the buyer the choice with full information. Alternatively, the buyer might contact the seller with a request for special treatment (coupon, etc). I would think that giving the buyer the choice to pay the small order "penalty" would be efficient and provide buyers a more informed choice than is available elsewhere.
For #2, I am frequently overwhelmed (as was well-described by RobErNat above), so my distaste for Minimum Lot Averages as a buyer is outweighed by the reality that time is limited. I am considering using a Min Lot, not to increase profits, but to assure that I can deliver the timely service that is expected. If I spend a huge amount of time with a 150 lot order with an average of say, $0.12, why should my other orders be delayed? Why should I work (in some cases) for pennies per hour? And (sorry to degrade the discussion) most of my "difficult" customers are in fact these high lot number/low lot average value orders.
However, I'm not exactly sure what setting the lot min avg at one pound will achieve. I understand that it will prevent the buyer from the shock of dealing with a $10/lot min, but is there a positive effect that this change would make? I would guess it would prompt a few sellers to leave because they need a higher lot avg to because of high overhead/processing costs. I also see it as making it easier for sellers (like me) to make the jump to the one pound lot min avg rather than a $10 or so min order. I guess this is a positive. I would think it would make adopting the min lot avg as more acceptable.
It is not clear to me whether you are proposing these to BOTH be in place. They seem to be compatible to me. I think both are positive changes (in balance).
My vote would be YES on both. (Please don't decide this on a vote count, though.)
I especially appreciate your consideration of this, Lawrence. Although complex, this is one of the basic structures that must be balanced to provide a pleasant, accessible venue for the buyer, BUT also must protect the sellers' interests - in this case, primarily TIME.
I think that the "no extra fees" mantra is getting in the way, though. If you think about it, minimum orders and lot limits do act as extra fees to buyers who aren't meeting a store's requirements.
So, to tie this back to the suggestions:
#1: Yes, it can work, but it should be presented a little differently than it's being described to far. I imagine it as a processing or handling fee. When the cart doesn't meet the store's requirements, a sidebar shows the handling fee alongside the shipping cost, with a little asterisk or footnote for further explanation ("this handling fee will be changed to $0.00 if you add $xx to your order").
This would allow the buyer to see any potential extra fee the whole way along, and how to avoid it. I would also suggest that it not be set to 50% of the difference, but rather be adjustable by the seller to anywhere between 0 and 100%, or a fixed amount. It sounds complicated, but the user experience would be simple. (In much the same way that it can be complicated for sellers to set up shipping bands, but the user experience is straightfarward-- they simply see the shipping cost.)
For #2.... is it a problem right now? I'd be fine with a limit, I'm just not sure how many people it would really affect.
--
Marc.
I am unsure if either proposal will help to stop abandoned carts. We only have a store minimum which is low and we have a lot of active carts.
I would like to see more unified practices and fees site-wide, as I have had many times when customers are unaware of different stores being different people/companies i.e. they think I AM BrickOwl
I would think penalizing customers in the way you suggest will lead to some bad feelings (and feedback)
Ease and transparency of ALL charges is what I like when I shop.
OR have the stores hidden from customers view in "wish list fill basket mode" if the MLA or MOV are not met