[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment

[Paul Keating]

Hi Brian,

Sorry I don¹t buy that one.

1. The significance of the abandonment rates is the relative percentage
INCREASE of abandonments.  For example, a rise from 20-40% is only 20
points.  However, it represents a 100% increase ­ obviously a significant
event.

2. More importantly, in the case of cart abandonment, it is material to
consider why the customer abandoned the transaction and WHEN during the
purchase process ­ it is all about attempting to decree the client¹s intent.
In relation to the TMCH notification, the customer has clearly evidenced
his/her intent to purchase but THEREAFTER abandons the transaction.  It is
safe to say that the notice was THE reason for the abandonment.

3. GoDaddy and certainly most other serious registrars must measure the
place along the transaction line where abandonment occurs.  They certainly
want to track this data so as to improve and correct any issues with the
purchase routine.  So, instead of guessing (and what appears to me to issue
an expression of bias in favor of ³no harm so no foul ­ lets not change the
TMCH²) lets ask those who may actually know the numbers and then use the
actual evidence to support a given position.

Paul Keating
 

From:  <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Beckham, Brian"
<brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Date:  Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:56 AM
To:  "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment

> Dear all,
>  
> I¹m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am
> not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to
> help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various
> TMCH/Claims-related data.
>  
> In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02
> June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates.  In
> summary:  Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare
> non-TMCH-related abandonment vs ³regular² abandonment.  Jeff Neuman recalled
> that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment.  Phil Corwin
> suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be
> reasonable to conclude that there¹s not a material difference between those
> subject to claims notices.
>  
> Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data
> (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on
> the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that ³An average website loses 69
> percent <https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate>  of sales to
> abandoned carts.²   A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
>  
> See 
> https://www.godaddy.com/garage/smallbusiness/market/effective-strategies-to-bo
> ost-abandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates/ and
> https://www.godaddy.com/garage/industry/retail/ecommerce/want-to-to-increase-s
> ales-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment/.
>  
> There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to
> generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
>  
> The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while
> different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce
> statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling
> ³a significant difference in the completion of registration.²).
>  
> It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that
> (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have
> been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Brian
>  
> Brian Beckham|Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section|WIPO Arbitration and
> Mediation Center
> 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland|T +4122 338 8247|E
> brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> |www.wipo.int
> <http://www.wipo.int/>
>  
> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170609/83fcbf7a/attachment-0001.html>