MarketingExperiments Blog: Research-driven optimization, testing, and marketing ideas

So often, beautiful design gets trumped by marketing objectives – and rightly so from a marketing perspective. The graphical elegance of a Web page might be worthy of an art exhibit, but if it doesn’t sell anything but “oohs” and “ahs,” what service does it really provide to anyone?

True, but it is at this point that we tend to divide. It’s them or us. Are you a marketer or a designer? Whose side are you on? As one popular design blog analyzes its relationship with marketing, “You can spell ‘team’ from the word ‘marketing,’ but I’ve yet to see a sense of it in marketing.”

But I think we (marketers) can and should live in both worlds. I believe design can be done in such a way as to actually contribute to the perceived value of an offer without being a distraction. I think marketing, whether they can measure it or not, is leaving money on the table when design is viewed as optional icing on the cake. Yes, I have a dream…

But, feelings aside, we must always default to testing – not our gut instincts. And so I was glad to see a recent experiment bring a little shimmer of hope to those of us who long for the day when these two often opposing worlds come together.

The Original Page (click to enlarge)

The original page was for an Australian company that offers dedicated hosting solutions. The primary goal of this page was to get the visitor to request a quote. These quotes were essentially leads that were then followed-up with and nurtured.

Nathan Thompson (who happens to be making his debut appearance on today’s Web clinic) was the key researcher for this page. Upon analysis, he identified the following three conversion threats:

1)  There is significant friction due to the volume of questions (many unnecessary) posed in the form.

2) There is not enough value being communicated with headlines, images, copy and CTA.

3) The overall low aesthetic quality of the design may be creating anxiety as to the actual capabilities of this company.

Of these issues, number three stood out as the most interesting hypothesis and I was eager to see the treatments he would put together to address this issue of design-induced anxiety.

The Optimized Page (click to enlarge)

The page that Nathan and the team created:

1) Significantly reduced the form fields required on the first step from 20 to four.

2)  Removed distracting banner images and strengthened the visibility of the headlines to better communicate the value.

3) Included a six-point expandable/interactive display of value proposition copy.

4) Added testimonials and cleaner, more modern images.

5) And then, finally, Nathan and the team focused on creating a more aesthetic design in order to improve the perceived credibility of this company. The thought was, if you are a business looking for a company with professional online capabilities, then a more professional design would generate better response. Let’s now go to the numbers.

The Results

Well, as the title reveals, the results of this newly designed page were significant. The new page outperformed the control by 188.46% with a statistical confidence level of 95%.

There are so many things that can be said about this test, and we will be drilling down much deeper on this experiment and others on today’s web clinic, but what is most notable to me right now is that the more graphical appealing page was the clear winner. This is different than what we have seen in past experimentation.

Now, we cannot forget that this is a radical redesign, multi-factorial test. There are many factors here being tested at once, and no doubt the results reflect that. But, with that said, all of these changes did happen within the context of a purposefully and strategically more aesthetic Web design. That’s noteworthy in my book. And for those who often feel the tension between marketing and design, it’s my peace offering for today.

What do you think?

Is this page more aesthetic or am I being too kind? How would you improve it? Did the more aesthetic design actually contribute to conversion or was it the other elements being tested?

Related Resources:

TODAY’S WEB CLINIC: Optimizing Landing Pages: The four key tactics that drove a 189% lift

The Creative vs. The Marketing Team: Yin And Yang, Oil And Water

Online Marketing and Advertising: How your peers provide and communicate value to customers

What “ugly duckling” landing pages can teach us

General

Ever tested an optimized landing page that followed all the right tactics, dramatically improved the page’s look and feel, got kudos on all the internal previews – and still got trounced by the ugly duckling control page?

All Web marketers have been there. That’s why we test in the first place. But each time this situation pops up, it seems to throw us for a loop.

Today the MarketingExperiments team reviewed a test that fit this scenario precisely. The control page was a bare-bones, ultra-vanilla layout: white background, plain black text, bulleted copy and simple name and e-mail signup form. There was even a prominent typo.

The tested treatments were far more polished and professional, with masthead logo images, a few testimonials, images of client logos, copy with select phrases bolded, and different text on the “submit” button. An “Anti-Spam” medallion next to the short form was added to reassure registrants.

Remarkably, the conversion rate was nearly 14% for the bare-bones control, compared to a 7-9% range for the two treatments. We can’t show the pages, but here are a few takeaway lessons:

• Beware of copy revisions that significantly alter the offer. From headlines to “submit” buttons, it’s easy to underestimate the power of two or three words to tilt the needle the wrong way. Example: “Free Access” vs. “Send me Tips”.

• Not every hero shot will save the day. Images aren’t a slam dunk, whether they are of people or product. Using a relevant photo generally attracts the eye, and the right one can add a little sizzle to the page, but portraits and logos run the risk of being divisive. Example: Logos of your Fortune 500 clients could turn off some small companies and single-shingle prospects.

• Don’t count on an incentive to lift response. Thinking of adding a freebie to make your opt-in offer more appealing? Tread carefully. It might not hurt response, but it might not help either. In this test, the treatment offering a free report finished dead last. (Keep that in mind before you produce that next whitepaper you’re certain every prospect will love.)

While these pages are going back to the lab for additional testing, the early results helped isolate several elements that should make a big impact on subsequent rounds. It’s a good reminder that even tests that fail can improve our optimization efforts, and that we still benefit … even when the ugly ducklings win.

Marketing Insights