Key reasons why online shoppers abandon their orders before checkout
A recent survey indicates that over two-fifths of consumers have abandoned online purchases due to retailers not offering free delivery or returns.
The poll, conducted by KPMG, revealed that 42 per cent of consumers view mandatory delivery or return fees as a deal-breaker. Additionally, 13 per cent admitted to purchasing multiple items with the intention of keeping only their preferred choice or the best fit.
KPMG noted that these findings underscore the significance of free delivery and returns for online shoppers, while also highlighting the challenges retailers face due to the overuse of these schemes.
Serial returners have increasingly strained retailers' return costs, leading to adjustments in postage policies.
The survey also found that 13 per cent of shoppers often buy multiple sizes of clothing or footwear online to find the best fit, returning the rest.
Another 12 per cent buy multiple items to evaluate their preferences, returning unwanted products, with this practice being most prevalent among 18 to 24-year-olds, where it affects a quarter of those surveyed.
Furthermore, 6 per cent of respondents admitted to buying items for temporary use before returning them "as new" after they were finished with them.
The survey also found that 14 per cent of consumers said having no drop-off option or returns locker close to their home stopped them from making an online purchase – rising to a quarter of those aged 18 to 24.
Linda Ellett, head of consumer, retail and leisure for KPMG UK, said: 'Free delivery or free and convenient returns options remain a key purchasing driver for many consumers shopping online.
'Companies are having to weigh these consumer demands up against the cost of such schemes, including due to a cohort of consumers that are repeat buying with no intention to keep all items – something that is clear in our research.
'Savvy retailers are increasingly utilising purchasing data to categorise customers into those making genuine returns choices versus the unprofitable serial returner cohort.
'And as technology, including AI, evolves further, the ability to target those taking advantage of free returns policies will improve. This will help retailers reduce the risk of losing those who could become a lifetime shopper and are just gradually becoming accustomed to the brand's sizing and fit.'
One Poll surveyed 3,000 UK consumers online between March 5-11.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'Public are sick to death of the migrant free-for-all', says Top Tory as he hails Mail's cash-for-visas investigation
The public are 'sick to death' of the immigration 'free-for-all', Robert Jenrick warned yesterday after the Mail revealed how crooked legal advisers run cash-for-visas scams. The Tory justice spokesman hailed our 'crucial' undercover investigation which exposed how companies are charging up to £22,000 per person to provide 'skilled' jobs in the UK for underqualified foreign workers. The Mail probe discovered a range of brazen tricks being used to dupe the Home Office into providing sponsorship licences which enable convenience stores, barbers, warehouses and bars across the country to bring in overseas labour on false pretences. It is so lucrative that many firms have been started up just to profit from hiring foreign staff and then exploit them for cheap labour. Immigration advisers working as fixers for the firms coach immigrants on how to lie to officials, overstating their levels of education and experience to secure the visa. Mr Jenrick said: 'This crucial Daily Mail investigation shows our immigration system is a free-for-all. 'Scammers are lining their pockets while the public have yet more low-skilled migration forced upon them. 'It's gone on for decades and the public are sick to death of it.' Border security minister Dame Angela Eagle launched an urgent investigation into our probe. She also immediately suspended the sponsorship licence of Leicester-based immigration advice firm Flyover International after the Mail revealed its managing partner tricks the Home Office into believing employers need a certificate of sponsorship to take on overseas workers. Joe Estibeiro told our undercover reporter that he worked with businesses in Bradford, Leicester, Northampton and Peterborough, but takes payment for his services only via third-party bank accounts to avoid a paper trail linking the firm to his scam. He makes it appear that employers can't find any British residents to fill 'skilled' jobs by first advertising the positions in the UK and only recording interviews with the worst candidates to use as evidence if the Home Office investigates. The overseas workers he recruits officially earn around £3,000 a month to meet the Government's minimum salary requirements for skilled worker visas. But Estibeiro described how after the money is paid into their account they have to withdraw all but £900 and secretly hand it back to their boss. More than 131,000 businesses are on the Home Office's list for licensed sponsors for the permits. including market traders, dog groomers – listed as 'canine beauticians' – curtain fitters and even scores of kebab shops. Critics warned the open duplicity could sink Sir Keir Starmer's immigration crackdown which made new restrictions on skilled worker visas a major part of his aim to end the economy's addiction to cheap overseas labour. Flyover International is owned by another man who is understood to be taking the matter seriously and investigating, and says Estibeiro was not officially hired to work for the UK end of the business. Estibeiro denied involvement in any 'illegal or unethical' activity and said he was 'solely involved in student recruitment'. A Home Office source claimed that when Mr Jenrick was immigration minister, he failed to clamp down on the criminal gangs fuelling illegal immigration. The source added: 'If he needs reminding what the Labour Government has done to tackle this, we've introduced a new law to prevent suspected crooks like the one found by the brilliant journalism in the Daily Mail – so the Immigration Advice Authority will get new powers to immediately suspend registered advisers and organisations.'
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel Reeves to sign off funding for Sizewell C nuclear power plant - 43 years after it was proposed
will tomorrow sign off funding for the Sizewell C nuclear power plant – more than 40 years after it was proposed. The Chancellor will announce £14.2billion to pay for a new reactor at the site in Suffolk, with the plant eventually powering 6million homes. The funding will be included in her comprehensive spending review, which was finalised last night after a bitter row with Yvette Cooper over police funding ended with the Home Secretary having to accept the Treasury's terms. Sizewell C was first proposed in 1982 and, after years of paralysis, was given the green light by the Tories in 2022. Ms Reeves will also confirm a £2.5billion investment in nuclear fusion research, while government sources said ministers would press ahead with proposals for 'mini' nuclear plants around the country. The Treasury said the funding would help create 10,000 new jobs. The last time Britain completed a new nuclear plant was in 1987, which was Sizewell B. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction but not expected to open until 2031. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said last night: 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy.' But Alison Downes, of the Stop Sizewell C group, said the plant was a 'white elephant'. The Prime Minister's spokesman said: 'The review is settled. We will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off.'
Sky News
30 minutes ago
- Sky News
The five considerable problems with the chancellor's U-turn on winter fuel payments
There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all? First, Rachel Reeves has executed the plan without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound that opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to. Politics latest: Treasury minister challenged over reason for U-turn Second, the fig leaf that she and Treasury ministers are using is an improvement in economic conditions. If you were being polite, you'd say this is contested. The OBR halved growth this year and the OECD downgraded UK forecasts, albeit only by a little, last week. The claim that interest rates are coming down ignores that their descent is slower because of government decisions of the last six months. Third, the question immediately becomes, what next? Why not personal independent payments (PIP) and the two-child benefit cap? At this stage, it would feel like a climbdown if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it, and could they punish the government? Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the Parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are worried. 👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Fifth, this has created a firm division between No 10 (the PM) and No 11 (the Chancellor). No 10 is now conscious that it does not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first. Read more:UK to become 'AI maker not taker', says PMHow much cash will Reeves give each department? Given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened? Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioners' anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying, whatever the fiscal cost. We wait to see who is right.
