A survey by UK cashback website Quidco (something like Jellyfish in the US) has found that one in three British consumers have stopped using price comparison sites, with a further 47% put off by ‘biased’ results. The consumers are reportedly concerned that results on these sites are displayed according to which company pays the most for their listings.
Other findings from the survey, which was conducted by Tickbox.net and polled 1,652 British adults in June and July in 2007, included:
- One in three shoppers go directly to specific websites, while the remaining 70% start their online shopping with a search engine, cashback or comparison site.
- Customers value service more than security – just 23% said security was a concern when shopping online, while just 5% cared whether the site was easy to use. Good customer service was the key for 65% of respondents.
The just mentioned Quidco and Jellyfish are comparison engines that work on a cost-per-sale (CPS) based principle. So when a customer actually buys a product, they get paid by the merchant. This is quite different from other comparison engines that work on a cost-per-click (CPC) basis. For a merchant obviously the CPS model is in favor, because this imposes no risk for them at all.
I must agree that comparison engines who display results according to who pays the most for their listings are in turmoil. A site in The Netherlands that works according to this principle is Kelkoo.nl. They are experiencing a lower reach month after month (see graph below):
Data is provided by the STIR.
Filed under: Comparison shopping, E-business, Online merchants
[...] IPO, and Admiral’s confused.com already well established. Price comparison sites have been criticised recently for perceived bias in their listings, so it will be interesting to see if Tesco favours the [...]
[...] intesting fact is that Microsoft just invested in Jellyfish (see my earlier post on them here), so in contrast to Yahoo! Microsoft does see big opportunities in the price comparison area. [...]