Why does Sotheby’s hate its customers?

[jdaw1]

Sotheby’s have sent me an email, telling me that ‟Fine and Rare Wines & Vintage Port / Sale L10705 / 19 May 10”, ‟Catalogue Now Online”. Good start: quite right to tell me.

There are some links: Auction Details, Browse E-Catalogue, Purchase Catalogue, and Directions. Already there are two problems:
• Why are the URLs to the domain links.mkt2449.com? It makes it looking like a phishing attempt. Surely Sotheby’s content should be at www.sothebys.com?
• No link to PDF; instead we’re going to have to fight with IT’s baby and the customers’ curse, an e-catalogue.

Well, we want to know what’s for sale, so Browse E-Catalogue.



There’s a big button: ‟View PDF Catalogue”: great, thank you. I can download the PDF to my computer, peruse, search, and if I buy something at the auction, keep the catalogue. Great. Except that the button does nothing. Just like the ‟Download the Full Catalogue” button. Nothing. So, pestilence and purgatory, we’ll have to ‟View E-Catalogue”, which takes us to a Grid View.



You cannot be serious. You just cannot be serious. Do you really hate your customers this much?

Deep breath. Let’s try clicking on ‟List View”. That has only twenty lots per page, but that can be changed to sixty (why not to ‟All”?). So, setting that at maximum, we get the following.



The scroll bar at the bottom is generated by Sotheby’s program, not the browser. That’s right: Sotheby’s allow me to see only three lots at once. All that white space could be showing me stuff: instead it’s just white space.

There is a filter button. If it does something, it isn’t obvious what or how (other than producing an empty pop-up).

So I’m going to have to work my way through eight pages (of sixty lots), three lots at a time.

[jdaw1]

What’s really wrong? This IT is IT-led. Programmers have had great fun with their own little app. It is not customer-led (obviously it has not even been tested on outsiders), and it is not led by business process.

So I have a task for Sotheby’s top management. Go home. Ask the spouse to use it. ‟Darling, can you see what port we have for sale in the auction next month?” Sit behead the spouse, SILENTLY. Give no guidance; no help; no instruction. Watch. Take notes, including start time. Observe the spouse attempt to find the port. If successful, how many minutes did it take? If not, after sufficiently long say ‟thank you”, call work and have that entire system scrapped.

What’s wanted?

1. Table presentation in HTML, on one page. One line per lot, with text description in once column and estimate in another. Then it becomes easy to use the browser’s ⌘F to find things.

2. PDF, being digital paper.

Both of which should be easily accessible: one click from the email; one click from the auction-details page.

[jdaw1]

Compare and contrast the forthcoming Bonhams auction. The annoying default of 10 items per page can be changed to 1000, and then the whole catalogue is within reach of ⌘F. Technologically simpler, and so much nicer for the user.

[DRT]

Presumably Sotheby's have been alterted to the existence of this thread?

I haven't used the online catalogue but I agree that it looks rubbish. PDF is just so easy to create there are no excuses for not having that option.

[Andy Velebil]

That sucks. There is no excuse for such a poor website. Bonham's used to be almost as bad. It's still not great, but at least they finally got the search function working better.

[jdaw1]

Presumably Sotheby's have been alterted to the existence of this thread?

Yes.

If you have a reply to the grumbling at www.ThePortForum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3945 then I would be happy to post it. The ideal reply would say: ‟the current IT is uselessly complicated; we will implement what you suggest”. But I’m willing to post a different reply if you have one.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments that you have written here. I hate the Sothebys e-catalogue and it is easily the least friendly for potential buyers - not infrequently do I decide that I do not have the time to browse and see if there is anything I am interested in.

Web presence does seem to be something that the small, regional auction houses understand much better than the big London houses. They have simplicity, ease of navigation and a PDF option. Just because you are big, you do not have to have a flashy web site.

[jdaw1]

Nothing from Sotheby’s: not even an acknowledgement. To whom should I write?

[uncle tom]

Bonhams is the least bad - that's probably the nicest thing I can say..

Get into Sotheby's and click 'place bid' and it links you to a form that has to filled out and faxed - how steam age is that?

Christies site is far too complex for its own good - every page takes much too long to load, and every click of a button demands a tiresome wait while it works out what to do..

The biggest issue with the London auction houses is the dismal standard of cataloguing, and lack of photos. They all take the view that an owc needs no photo, but I would disagree - some owcs have been beaten up and shipped around the planet - prised for inspection and re-sealed; while others have been kept in soggy conditions, with damp stained boards that often conceal composted labels.

They are also extremely bad at reporting provenance, with the great majority of lots sold blind in that respect. One of the biggest sources of auction stock is the Wine Society, a provenance I regard as good, and worth going the extra mile for when bidding; yet none of the London trio give any clue now when WS stock is on offer..

Perhaps someone who belongs to the WS might like to take this up with them, for the benefit of their members..

Tom

[jdaw1]

Perhaps someone who belongs to the WS might like to take this up with them, for the benefit of their members.

I have a contact, who has been emailed.

[jdaw1]

I hate the Sothebys e-catalogue and it is easily the least friendly for potential buyers - not infrequently do I decide that I do not have the time to browse and see if there is anything I am interested in.

Sotheby’s: pay attention, before your competitors do.

[jdaw1]

Sotheby’s replies:

!from reading your posts on the blog I can understand your frustration.

In this instance, your comments were referring to a catalogue that was not intended to be viewable. There was an erroneous link included in the email that was sent, and this directed you towards the wrong version of the online catalogue. This was also spotted by our internal team and resolved immediately, reverting clients to the intended version of the e-catalogue which is currently viewable online.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused you. I do hope that the current version of the online catalogue meets your needs more adequately.

Kind regards,

Josh

Josh Pullan | Sotheby’s
Assistant Vice President
Worldwide Head of Digital Media Services

Excepting the ‟immediately” (I had time to labour through it taking screen dumps), it is now better. The ‟Explore auctions” link (childish name) leads to Browse Catalogue, which is much less terrible. Simple improvement: change the default value of Lots per page to ‟All”.

[WS1]

Hi Julian,

indeed their online functionality is terrible, but this means people are put off and if you get used to the rubbish set up you can make some bargains otherwise there are not possible due to people rightly being put off.


regards

WS1