4 ms·
> The investment thesis is that if 1-click checkout were to take off, it would become a winner-take-all market where every shop wants to use the 1-click provide
by koreth1 4y ago
> The investment thesis is that if 1-click checkout were to take off, it would become a winner-take-all market where every shop wants to use the 1-click provider with the largest customer base.
Not saying you're wrong about that being the thesis, but the thesis makes no sense to me. It assumes that consumers are selecting shopping sites based on which payment service the sites use rather than on, say, price or selection.
The target market this investment thesis depends on is people who say, "I found a site with just the thing I wanted, but to buy it, I would have to enter my payment information! Guess it's back to Google to see if someone else has it at a similar price, and if not, I just won't buy it at all." Because the moment you give in and enter your payment and shipping details into a second checkout provider, that provider becomes just as convenient for future purchases as your first one.
- kadoban 4y agoI've definitely bailed on purchases before due to the purchase flow being too annoying, and either found another site or gave up. Usually this is due to having to type in all my data just to figure out what shipping options are, but I'm quite sure every step you make people do to check out results in x% fewer sales.
- sokoloff 4y agoI wonder how much of this is driven by misunderstanding the analytics? “We have a huge drop-off rate in our checkout flow! Customers have intent to buy and they’re somehow getting blocked in checkout; we need a smoother/faster checkout…” No dumbass, you need to need to not charge $15 shipping on a product where you’re only $5 cheaper than your free shipping competitor.
- twblalock 4y ago> It assumes that consumers are selecting shopping sites based on which payment service the sites use rather than on, say, price or selection. If I'm shopping for something and multiple sites offer it for the same price, which happens pretty often for many categories of products, I prefer the vendor with the easiest checkout experience and/or the fastest shipping.
- 2143 4y agoIt's just, people like me simply don't want to enter their payment information to an additional thing.
- rtpg 4y agoThe "makes sense" idea is for low effort purchases. Simple example is itch.io. Games on there are a couple of bucks. I have my payment information saved. People link a game to me, and I'll maybe impulse buy cuz I don't have to deal with making an account or setting up payment info. It's silly, but I think it works in a certain sweet spot! But honestly I think the bigger thing than payment details is actual account creation. I'll go over to Amazon to buy a thing just to not deal with some product's bespoke checkout page, unless I really want to support the product's creator.
- tjs8rj 4y agoI think the network effects are on the vendor side. As a vendor you integrate with the one-click checkout company that has the largest user base, because that'll have the most coverage for your customers.
- kleinsch 4y agoYea, your thesis makes no sense. Refining that thesis into what Bolt/Fast/etc actually believe: - Conversion rates on the checkout page will be higher when user info is prefilled bc of less friction - This means conversion rates will be highest for the one click checkout product with the largest market share - This will lead to merchants choosing the one click checkout product with the largest market share, bc they want the best conversion rates - This leads to VCs lighting money on fire trying to capture the market, since largest user network will be the main objective This is assuming, of course, that checkout page UX and optimization is something all these companies will be able to do so it'll be a level playing field there. Given how much research and experimentation has gone into optimizing checkout pages, if these players all have buckets of VC money, that seems safe to me.