The fair comparison shopping on the Internet has been questioned by a few months ago an investigation by the DGCCRF stigmatized the lack of transparency on the part of the whole sector. Frederic Lambert, head of Buy-Less-Cher , explains the implications of this survey on the image comparators and transparency policy of Buy-Less-Expensive.
Douard Olivier Frederic, a few months after the investigation of the DGCCRF, how is the market of price comparison?
Frederic Lambert: I do not know how are other price comparison sites. For our part, Buy cheap is well, despite a slight decline in early spring that I can not award more to this investigation as presidential elections are traditionally a bad time to trade: consumers tend to postpone their large equipment purchases. What I know is that it was bad in terms of image. We received a lot of disparaging remarks acids or our users. Thus, there was indeed a very negative effect on the industry. From a standpoint of our CA, our success continues unabated this year with an increase of 44%) last year. We closed our accounts in late June from one year to another. Our revenues are primarily based on a percentage of sales, 1.2 million euros in sales that we achieve in 2006/2007 (against 740,000 for the year 2005/2006) of commission on all sales made through us. These committees show that millions of users have used our service, compared prices and bought in substantial savings.
OD: In the conclusions of the investigation of the DGCCRF, Buy-Less-Cher was the only French and compare prices to be found blameless in transparency. How the speech-Less Buy Cher stands there other comparators?
FL: Buy the cheaper price comparison is independent, neutral, class and compared the selling price of the cheapest to most expensive, new products available to buy online from merchants secure and reliable french web. Our speech is always the same since 1998: we are on the consumer side, we provide a service that strengthens vis a vis sellers. We are transparent, our actions reflect our words. We do not fooling our users. I think all the comparators have the same speech, but actions do not follow. The survey is the proof. I must add that today the term is overused comparison: many systems are closer to the buying guide or mere listings that have nothing to do with the price comparison as we practice it. Buy cheap
was "free" shops from 1998 to 2000: after the Internet bubble burst, revenue from advertising no longer allowed to pay employees and improve the system that requires hard work daily. We then moved on a model that has nothing to share to do with PPC: A shop that sells nothing pays nothing. I saw many small shops ruined by unscrupulous competitors "to click, and it continuously. Our system allows these shops to be present and to not pay that result. I must add that some companies are "click-here because they want to. They do not want to disclose their sales and sometimes, for sellers who have large shopping carts, the click may be more interesting than the percentage. This represents roughly 10% of our turnover, 10% also for advertising and 80% for income percentage on sales.
We have about 100,000 visitors a day, 3 million per month. It would take at least 10 times the traffic to get enough income to live only Adsense style advertising. Some new competitors claim to be free but it's just the lie: it is not possible for a true price comparison. It should have 100% market share in France and again, it would not be enough.
You should know that the real price comparison requests a work of "matching" it is impossible to do it automatically. We can repatriate info in crawl sites but not sufficient, we must "matcher", this whole business is at this level. We have developed a system combining the automation to manual labor to provide the best information to our users and it works. The fact
to pay a percentage also has positive effects we can put pressure on shops that behave badly towards buyers. We remove or suspend regular shops unconscionable that practice cavalry you buy, you are charged and are delivered only six months after ... This is unacceptable. Free systems without control, end up with spammers top of the list who drop false information about the price for the trafficking. Frooggle the U.S. who is on a push system is facing such problems: the first Prices are often false. We must constantly be on guard and not to trust the shops ... The limit of completeness here is: should he keep a shop indelicate or delete? Should we show the price of "cheaper" if there is one chance in two that the buyer is not delivered? We think not.
OD: This distinction can it become a strong selling point to users?
FL: On the Net, as elsewhere, a reputation is gradually and through use. I think we've always kept the same policy: our real customers are our users, not the shops Online. We hope to have the trust of our users. Transparency is, I think, even more necessary on the net than in traditional societies. The Google example is striking: they do what they say and do not favor a large group over small boxes. Everyone is on equal footing. C is what I like from the outset on the net.
Thank you Fred!
