Member Avatar for daniel.walker01

Finlandia Group brings out an interesting comparative study regarding the E-commerce market in Finland in respect of U.S. The reason behind the comparison is to highlight how much the Finns are different or more precisely are lagging behind the major country ruling the scene of E-commerce presently. In America, the proportion of internet users presently is 74.9% of entire population. Of this, most of the internet users here, say around 82% are likely to shop for the products online and only a minor rate of 18% would visit the stores physically. If we consider the present situation, USA seems to have spent nearly 45 billion USD which makes it the top most country for the e-commerce.

In case of Finland you have 86 percent of the population as internet users. The percentage seems to be a good number but the catch is that most of the Finns here prefer window shopping and use the internet chiefly for the getting information on the services and goods but only a few of them say 20-40% are actually interested in online shopping. Moreover, the Finns are also not found much in the social networking sites, which are one of the most advanced tools of online marketing today. According to the Finlandia Group, only 42% of the Finland population use the social networking platforms compared to 63.7 percent in U.S.

  • 2 Contributors
  • 1 Reply
  • 262 Views
  • 1 Day Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by Jashandeep

Dani AI

Generated

Good summary by and thanks to for the response. The Finlandia Group report is a useful conversation starter, but headline country-to-country comparisons often hide crucial caveats. Treat the study as a hypothesis generator: check how the measures were defined, who was surveyed, and which behaviors were actually compared before drawing marketing conclusions.

Questions to ask about the report

  • How were key terms defined (for example, "internet user", "buyer", or "social network user") and over what time window?
  • What was the sample size and demographic mix? Was it weighted to reflect age, region, or device usage?
  • Were purchases counted on local sites only, or did cross-border/marketplace transactions factor in?
  • Which channels were measured as "marketing"—organic search, marketplaces, paid social, email?
    Answering these clarifies whether the gap is structural or methodological.

Actionable steps marketers can apply

  • Run a quick checkout audit: reduce form fields, add locally preferred payment options, surface trust signals and a clear returns policy.
  • Prioritize channels that match actual behavior: if social engagement is low, focus on search, product content, marketplaces and comparison engines.
  • Use small, measurable experiments: one change at a time, with clear KPIs and traffic splits.
  • Strengthen post-purchase experience to turn browsers into repeat buyers: tracking, easy returns, and timely service.

Practical KPIs and a short pilot

  • Core metrics: conversion rate, cart abandonment, average order value, customer acquisition cost, repeat purchase rate and ROAS.
  • 30-day pilot: Week 1 — audit and hypothesis; Week 2 — implement 1–2 low-cost fixes (checkout + payments); Week 3 — run targeted traffic and track; Week 4 — analyze and iterate.

Final note: request the report’s methodology or raw tables where possible and triangulate with local industry data before scaling any strategy.

Member Avatar for Jashandeep

Its really a great news hope you will give as as you are giving now.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.