{"id":443,"date":"2018-02-14T04:34:40","date_gmt":"2018-02-14T04:34:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/measuringu.com\/flower-ux\/"},"modified":"2021-08-12T08:31:38","modified_gmt":"2021-08-12T14:31:38","slug":"flower-ux","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/measuringu.com\/flower-ux\/","title":{"rendered":"The User Experience of Flower Websites"},"content":{"rendered":"
This Valentine\u2019s Day around $2 billion will be spent<\/a> on flowers.<\/p>\n A lot of that ordering will be online.<\/p>\n Poor online experiences mean shoppers will abandon an order and go somewhere else, or not return when they need to purchase flowers again.<\/p>\n Having a strong user experience will ensure customers can find the right arrangement, for the right price, and have the flowers delivered fresh and on time.<\/p>\n To understand the quality of the online experience, we collected UX benchmark metrics on four popular flower websites in both 2017 and 2018.<\/p>\n A good benchmark indicates where a website falls relative to the competition and is an essential step to take to understand how any design changes contribute to a quantifiable improvement. See the introduction to UX benchmarking<\/a> for more background on this essential UX method.<\/p>\n We conducted two benchmark studies: a retrospective and task-based. In the retrospective study, we had 200 participants who recently visited or purchased from one of the flower websites reflect on their most recent experiences. In the task-based study, we had 120 participants who recently visited or purchased from any flower website attempt a predetermined task on one of the four websites (randomly assigned).<\/p>\n The data was collected in January 2018. Participants in the studies answered the 8-item SUPR-Q<\/a> (including the Net Promoter Score) and questions about their prior experience. Participants in the task-based study attempted one task on a website: order a dozen roses to be delivered on Valentine\u2019s Day to a specified address. Full details are available in the benchmark report<\/a>.<\/p>\n The SUPR-Q is a standardized measure of the quality of a website\u2019s user experience and is a good way to gauge users\u2019 attitudes. It\u2019s based on a rolling database of around 150 websites across dozens of industries. Scores are percentile ranks and tell you how a website experience ranks relative to the other websites. The SUPR-Q provides an overall score as well as detailed scores for subdimensions of trust, usability, appearance, and loyalty.<\/p>\n The scores for these websites ranged from a bit below average to well above average\u2014showing some good variation for this group. The online flower industry average SUPR-Q is at the 62nd<\/sup> percentile (scoring better than 62% of the websites in the database). Teleflora had the lowest SUPR-Q score of the group with a score at the 43rd<\/sup> percentile. 1-800-Flowers led the group with scores at the 75th<\/sup> percentile.<\/p>\n The SUPR-Q scores changed somewhat when participants in the task-based study were asked to complete the Valentine\u2019s Day roses task. The biggest difference was on FTD, which saw its SUPR-Q score drop on the task-based study, from 73% to 39%, indicating issues with the first time experience (and for this task).<\/p>\n We conducted a similar analysis in 2017 and the results showed similar scores. The average SUPR-Q score for this group dipped a bit from 69% to 62%. Comparisons to all subscales are also available in the report<\/a>.<\/p>\n 1-800-Flowers had the highest usability score (at the 75th<\/sup> percentile) compared to Teleflora, with the lowest at the 43rd percentile. The usability factor on the SUPR-Q predicts a SUS score<\/a>; in the case of 1-800-Flowers, it\u2019s a SUS equivalent score of 80 and for Teleflora, a 71.<\/p>\n For businesses that likely benefit from referrals, this group of websites generally had pretty mediocre Net Promoter Scores. The average NPS for this group was -2% (slightly more detractors than promoters), which is actually about average for Net Promoter Scores in our SUPR-Q database.<\/p>\n Compared to our 2017 data, most Net Promoter Scores were about the same, with the exception of Teleflora that dropped 30 points, from 16% last year to -14% this year.<\/p>\n Flowers are considered a commodity in the minds of many consumers and commodities are usually only differentiated by price (despite the marketing efforts of many of these companies). Consequently, we asked participants to reflect on how satisfied they were with the prices they paid at the flower websites. ProFlowers showed the lowest satisfaction of the group with one recent buyer reflecting on the unexpected cost:<\/p>\n \u201cThe prices they show compared to what the final price ends up being with shipping and fees can drastically vary. It’s disappointing to see something in your budget to then find it’s 50% more after everything is included.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Building further on price perception, we asked participants how transparent they felt the prices were throughout the checkout process. In general, participants felt there were hidden fees throughout the checkout process on all websites and would have liked more transparency.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are always hidden fees involved. The price always looks good for the flowers until everything is added up at the end and the bill comes out to be way more.\u201d \u2014Teleflora consumer<\/em><\/p>\n The estimated subtotal in the shopping cart still does not show extra charges for delivery and services.\u201d \u2014FTD consumer<\/em><\/p>\n The low Net Promoter Scores suggest consumers are open to switching flower websites. For most consumers, purchasing flowers isn\u2019t something done regularly (around half the participants report only purchasing a few times in the last year). To understand how effective the experience was for prospective buyers, we had 120 participants attempt to order an arrangement for this Valentine\u2019s Day using our MUIQ research platform<\/a>. This allows us to diagnose problems with the navigation and purchase processes.<\/p>\n Participants were most successful on FTD, but even then only 37% were able to correctly find the lowest price arrangement of roses with a vase. The other sites had completion rates below 25%, even when we relaxed the success rate criteria<\/a>\u00a0by not requiring the total shipping cost and fees. The main reason for the low completion rates is an extension of the price transparency problem identified by the participants in the retrospective study. Prices kept creeping up, usually without participants being fully aware.<\/p>\nBenchmarking The Flower Ordering Experience<\/h2>\n
\n
The Study<\/h2>\n
Quality of the Website User Experience: SUPR-Q<\/h2>\n
Usability Scores<\/h3>\n
Loyalty\/Net Promoter Scores<\/h3>\n
Price Value & Transparency<\/h3>\n
Task-Based Evaluation<\/h2>\n
UX Problems<\/h3>\n