[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment

[Paul Keating]

Brian

In reading my earlier email I confess it was a bit too assertive.  My apologies. 

That said however the articles do not provide the information necessary to reach any conclusions as to the impact of the TMCH notice. Guessing does not provide a sound foundation for policies. 

Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq.

> On Jun 9, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> 
> Paul,
>  
> While I don’t necessarily agree that referencing two articles by GoDaddy on this topic is “guesswork”, the point was simply that we do not have the data people keep pining for, and I thought maybe looking at the abandonment topic in other fora may be useful to give us some outside context to better judge what conclusions we can draw from the numbers we do have.  I personally found it useful to this end, and in any event it beats continued conjecture.
>  
> I will leave it to others to speak to your #2, but I recall a number of interventions in the WG suggesting that various parties in the registration chain had been pinging the TMCH for a number of reasons (whether to ascertain availability, merely out of curiosity, to create premium lists, etc.), so with respect, it seems difficult to accept your conclusion that a Claims Notice is “the” sole reason for abandonment.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Brian
>  
> From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es] 
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:35 PM
> To: Beckham, Brian; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
>  
> Hi Brian,
>  
> Sorry I don’t 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 client’s 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 “no harm so no foul – lets not change the TMCH”) 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,
>  
> I’m 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 “regular” 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 there’s 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 “An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.”   A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
>  
> See https://www.godaddy.com/garage/smallbusiness/market/effective-strategies-to-boost-abandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates/ and
> https://www.godaddy.com/garage/industry/retail/ecommerce/want-to-to-increase-sales-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 “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). 
>  
> 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|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/20170609/78da099c/attachment-0001.html>