YourSalon Research · Methodology
Central European Salon Booking Friction Benchmark 2026
Research question
How many obstacles does a client meet from finding a salon to confirming a booking, on the public online booking flow, across the four markets?
Scope
A mystery-shopping benchmark of the public online booking flow. It measures friction from finding a salon to the final confirmation step; it never completes a real booking and does not assess service quality.
Time period
2026 — single annual edition.
Markets
Czechia, Poland, Germany, Slovakia. — Czechia, Poland, Germany, Slovakia
Target population
Salons exposing any public online booking path (own booking page or marketplace), across business types and channels in the four markets.
Planned sample
Target 400–800 booking journeys, distributed across countries and salon types. The final number of journeys is disclosed only after testing.
Inclusion criteria
- Salons that expose any public online booking path (own booking page or marketplace).
- Across business types and across own-booking vs marketplace channels.
Exclusion criteria
- Phone- or DM-only salons (no public online flow to test) — counted separately as 'no online booking'.
- Test/staging pages.
Data collection
- We test only the PUBLIC booking process. We never complete a real booking — if a system reaches a final confirmation screen, we record data up to that step and stop.
- Each journey logs 20+ metrics: booking button found, clicks-to-book, time-to-slot, time-to-final-step, forced registration, phone/email required, extra data requested, price and duration visible, staff selection, 'any staff' option, nearest free slots, mobile issues, errors/broken flow, confirmation, online cancel/reschedule, mandatory prepayment, unexpected fees, dark patterns, user-language availability, back without data loss.
Scoring framework
Each journey scores 0–100 across seven categories. The direction is fixed everywhere: 100 = the simplest possible process, 0 = practically impossible to book.
100 = easiest to book; 0 = practically impossible.
| Scoring framework | % | — |
|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 15 | Booking button findable, Entry from Google/social |
| Speed | 20 | Clicks-to-book, Time-to-slot, time-to-final-step |
| Transparency | 15 | Price and duration visible, No surprise fees |
| Flexibility | 15 | Staff choice, 'any staff', Nearest slots visible |
| Mobile usability | 15 | No mobile issues, No layout breakage |
| Trust | 10 | Confirmation, clear cancel/reschedule, No dark patterns |
| Accessibility | 10 | User language available, Back without data loss |
Formulas
- Category score:
normalized metric points within the category weight - Friction score:
Σ category scores (0–100, higher = less friction)
Missing data
A step that cannot be reached (e.g. the flow breaks) is recorded with its failure reason, not silently dropped; the broken-flow rate is reported.
Quality control
- Standardized journey script with written rules for each metric.
- A random subset is re-tested on a second device/network.
- Broken-flow reasons are logged, not silently dropped.
Potential bias
- Tester device/network can affect timing — standardized but not identical to every client.
- Marketplace vs own-booking populations differ by country.
Limitations
- Public flows only; phone/DM booking is out of scope by design.
- No salon is named as 'worst'; only aggregated data and anonymized examples are shown.
Privacy
- No real bookings are completed and no personal data is submitted.
- Only aggregated data and anonymized screenshots are published — no salon is named as 'worst'.
Correction policy
Named systems may request a correction with evidence before or after publication; verified corrections are logged.
Update policy
Annual edition; the change log records every update and any named-system correction.
Contact
Methodology and media questions: info@yoursalon.cz
Sources and methodology
No external sources are cited yet — they are added as each fact is verified.