emarkets news
  e-market news
Issue 2001-6 Tuesday, April 3, 2001
    eCommerce Titles  









e-tourism newsletter

emarket strategies

Sign up free

  How to set the best price on the Internet

How to set the
best price

on the Internet

Online real estate: market consolidation
in the USA


Many business-models on the Internet assumed that transactional costs on the Internet were so low that it would allow them to sell their products at the lowest possible price, thus helping them to establish loyalty quickly as customers would find discount prices appealing.

As of today, most of these pioneers have either disappeared or else have had to modify their economic policy at great lengths.

Indeed, low prices are not quite enough to establish customer loyalty and the marketing expenses that are required to establish an ebrand have often proved themselves to be much higher than what could be gained through lower transactional costs.


McKinsey just published an interesting study about it, bringing out the pros and cons of the Internet dynamic pricing.

Its first point is about the categories of users themselves.

At a time when everyone gives us its own consumer segmentation, here is another one:

This new consumer segmentation is distributed as follow:

  • Simplifiers: 29%.
  • Bargainers: 8%.
  • Routiners: 15%.
  • Surfers: 8%.
  • Sportsters: 4%.
  • Connectors: 36%.

Simplifiers (29%) would represent, according to McKinsey, the consumers who are more concerned about the quality and conviviality that can be found from end-to-end than about prices as such.

Connectors (36%) would be the consumers who mainly use the Internet to get in touch with their friends and family. As for them, they usually buy online the same brands as they buy offline.

And finally come the Bargainers, or Bargain hunters, who would only represent 8% of the Internet users, according to McKinsey. It appears that only a very small minority of consumers would be ready to surf the Internet for hours on end to find the best possible prices and this goes against what has been said up to now.

To support its statements, McKinsey also adds that most online buyers purchase at the first site they visit. This would be the case for:

  • 89% of purchases made on online bookshops.
  • 84% of purchases made on online toyshops.
  • 81% of purchases made on online music shops.
  • 76% of made on online electronic shops.

McKinsey finishes its demonstration by saying that between 1997 and 1999, market leaders Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com raised online book prices by 7 and 8 percent, respectively. And yet, at the same time, their discount competitor Books-a-Million lowered prices by as much as 30…percent.

Despite setting up higher online prices, these two market leaders still managed to increase their market share and now own 87% of the whole US online book market share between them.

According to McKinsey, what companies should do is try and identify which is the pricing indifference band for each product.

This pricing indifference band would be around 17% for a branded consumer product, in the beauty industry for instance.

This is precisely for this kind of use that the Internet proves itself to be a powerful tool as it helps to set prices cleverly.

McKinsey also mentions the experience that was conducted by FairMarket, which regularly runs tests in order to determine how information around price can affect consumers' choice. Some other solutions can also be found, such as testing a price every 50th customer.

This proves how the Internet is an adaptable tool; it gives opportunities in real time, which can be used to find out which is the pricing indifference band for a given product. These offline approaches prove way cheaper than what can be gained from them.

You should also bear in mind the fact that the Internet allows you to modify your prices instantly: there is no need for you to have the whole catalogue reprinted.

A site such as Tickets.com would have been able to increase its margins by at least 45 percent had it been able to adjust concert ticket prices based on supply and demand.

And finally, McKinsey advises websites to segment customers in order to find out which would be the best dynamic price setting strategy they should use.

It does prove very difficult to differentiate prices according to your customers in traditional stores, other than through reductions and discount cards. On the contrary, computers make it possible to do almost anything online.

This is how a site will be able to adapt its prices according to its customers' buying histories, and this time the product indifference band will then be determined according to the product but also according to the customer himself.

This is how, once a customer's segment is identified, it is then possible to offer a segment-specific price or promotion immediately.

But we should remain cautious with this type of approach, as everyone still remembers what happened to Amazon.com when it tried to set up dynamic prices for DVDs: the site had to put an end to the offer real fast as it provoked a general outcry among its customers.

One thing is for sure: it has become necessary to analyse the way consumers surf and make purchases online as it now represents strong bases that will allow eCommerce to keep on expanding in a positive way. This is the reason why I decided to create BVA TFC research with the BVA institute in order to give eCommerce websites the tools they lacked up till now to analyse consumers' behaviour.

Source : Sudy Internet Pricing - McKinsey & Company

Back to titles
    Online real estate: market consolidation in the USA  

Homes.com just announced it filed for bankruptcy protection (Chapter 11).

The bad news come just one year after Homes.com managed to raise $38.5 million from some of the best-known venture capitalists, such as Hummer Winblad or Kinetics Ventures.

But homes.com's problem has both structural and commercial origins.

Indeed, Homes & Lands Publishing, whose 65 million real estate magazines are distributed in over 200 markets every year, just announced it was breaking its commercial ties with Homes.com and that it intended to develop its own Web site.

What's even worse is the fact that several Homes.com executives, including its founder and CEO, left Homes.com and joined Homes & Land.

This situation comes in handy for homestore.com, which currently is the online real estate leader in the United-States via its website Realtor.com where 90 percent of all American property listings can be seen!

Not only did Homes.com aim at becoming a platform containing property listings and related information for its customers but it also wanted to become a technology provider for real estate agents themselves, providing them with personified websites, specific software, etc.

Homes.com's customer base counts 150.000 real estate agents today. Homes.com said it would cut its expenses but would still continue its activities with sound financial bases.

Let's hope these 150.000 customers will keep on trusting the site as much as they used to.

This situation shows that the huge consolidation processes, which are currently taking place on the Internet in the United-Sates, will only spare the biggest actors who will manage to take away almost all the available markets.

As for the smallest Internet actors, unless those who are in very specific niches, they are becoming endangered species, and this does not only take place in the online real estate sector but in many other sectors as well.

What happened to homes.com proves very interesting in regard to the commercial links that can be seen between online and offline actors.

For a long time, people have been thinking that online actors could inflict their law to the companies that had been established for a long time (dinosaurs). But it is now obvious that the future belongs to those who have both the brand and the network. What was said about the banking sector also applies here.

What happened to homes.com is a perfect illustration of this balance of power: after a partnership with Homes.com that proved successful for Homes & Land, the latter decides to embark on the business on its own after it managed to kill its former partner in just one blow.

The lesson is clear for the biggest online actors and the message aimed at start-ups is just as clear: take the risks which are required online yourself, and if it works out, there will still be time enough for me to replace you, good old dinosaur, and even take over your specific Internet knowledge by luring away your best associates.

Source : inman

Back to titles

| Top | Home | eCommerce | eMetrics | Humour | Archives | Links |

| © Copyright | Privacy | Contact | Reports | eShopability Expertise |

The Last eCommerce Trends and Metrics : Sign Up Free

eMarket News Web Site Editor : Luc Carton