click to enlarge

In my job as a Senior Research Manager at MarketingExperiments, I talk to a lot of people who are new to online testing. Before I started, I used to think the most intimidating factor for newbies would be coming up with page designs and development. But it’s not. Dealing with metrics, by far, is the most intimidating.

Maybe it’s because, when they reached the fork in the road, they took the marketing path because they simply didn’t like math.

Or maybe metrics are intimidating simply because there are so many of them!

• Which metrics should I care most about?
• How do I interpret them?
• Which metrics should I install for my test?

I have some good news: You can eliminate all the confusion and anxiety you have if you organize your metrics into four major groups. And guess what? Specific groups (like Source and Nature) are far more important to planning great tests than others (like Amount and Result). Let me explain.

My Metrics Pyramid (it’s like the old Food Pyramid)

So let’s forget about numbers for just a moment. I put together an easy visual that functions a lot like the old Food pyramid.  The metrics that need more emphasis to plan great tests are at the bottom and the metrics that need less are at the top.

For Example: Your most revealing metrics are Nature and Source and should be at the base of your testing strategy, just like the pyramid said more bread, vegetables, and fruit at the base of your diet.  When it comes to fats, oils and sweets (the Amount and Result categories in this case), they could look and taste great but can end up giving you a stomachache you if you put too much emphasis on them just because it looks like it’s a great spot to test for an increase.

Group 1: Nature (the Why)

If you want to know what people are experiencing (or buying) on your pages, then look at this metric group. Common metrics that are a part of this group include:

• Event tracking
• Browsers/Platforms
• Time on page
• JavaScript versions
• Transaction Details

Use this group of metrics to find big problems people may be experiencing on your site. Just study the conversion rates for different operating systems. If there is a huge difference in conversion rate between Windows users and Safari users, and there is a large amount of visitors in the suffering system, then it’s possible that a simple fix can really move the needle.

Or even consider time on page or transaction details. How does it compare to other pages? Are people taking the time (on average) to read all your copy, or are they just buying a particular product and not others?

Group 2: Source (the Who)

If you want to know where people are coming from, then look at this metric group. Common metrics that are a part of this group include:

• Referrers
• Search terms
• Countries and Languages
• Top Landing Pages

These metrics often give clues to the motivation of your visitors and allow you to understand how many different types of visitors are coming to your pages.  Many times my team has been able to look at search terms, or a referral site, and understand the kind of experience or content the visitor is expecting. A test that doesn’t take source metrics into consideration is a test that has no clear target.

You can know what resulting action you want visitors to take, but there is no way you can effectively influence them to take it without knowing where they are coming from and what expectations they have (from an experience OR content standpoint)

Group 3: Result (the What)

If you want to know what people do once they get to a page, then look at this metric group. Common metrics that are a part of this group include:

• Conversions/Purchases
• Clicks
• Next Pages/Requested Pages

These metrics are like mile markers on your highway to conversion.  What markers must people take to get to the end of the road? At what markers do people get off the highway and get off track? If you can figure out what critical path visitors must take to impact your bottom line, you can determine where leaks are in your funnel (and start thinking about how to patch them).

If you see a great Amount of visitors that show a common Result action (like leaving the critical path in a certain direction), then you are at the beginnings of finding a good test to run. Still, though, you’ll need the help of group 2 and/or 1.

Group 4: Amount (the Where and When)

If you want to know what pages people are viewing, this is the metric group for you. Common metrics that are a part of this group include:

• Page views (unique, not unique)
• Visitors (new and returning)
• Visits
• Total Revenue

While you can’t build a test plan without considering this group, you shouldn’t build a test plan solely based on this group. I made this mistake once and it nearly cost me the confidence of my team. Just because there is a lot of traffic somewhere doesn’t mean it’s the right place to start.

Amount is the least important group of the four for building a better test plan.

Less sugar and fat, more substance

When the base of your test is built on better metrics, your results potential increases.

click to enlarge

If you want to ensure that your test plan is most likely to get a gain (somewhere), then make sure you are using all four metrics groups to build your test plan and sequence. If you don’t have a lot of metrics in the Nature category, you can still plan a decent test with groups 2-4.  Just stay away from an Amount- and Result-only diet.

Related Resources:

Copywriting: Long copy vs. short copy matrix

B2B Marketing Infographic: How are B2B marketers optimizing their funnel?

Metrics that matter — digging into the customer’s mindset

You wouldn’t use a dictionary that wasn’t in alphabetical order, nor would you invite a date to your high rise without telling him or her which apartment was yours. Yet, we still expect homepage visitors to navigate through seas of information and multiple paths, in hopes they’ll find what they need.

We spend a lot of time discussing landing pages because that’s where the action (i.e. conversions) happens. But homepages are sometimes the first interaction prospects have on a website, if not their first exposure to an entire brand. As such, they require similar levels of optimization.

Much like landing pages, following optimization principles is key in conveying a brand’s messaging. We need to strategically define the goals we have for a homepage, and the path we want the user to take.

We initially discussed the following experiment last Fall in our Web Clinic, “Homepages Optimized: How using the homepage as a channel led to a 59% increase in conversion.” However, in a Web clinic, by necessity of trying to convey complex information in a short amount of time during a live event, we usually aren’t able to delve into the entire experiment conducted here in the labs. For simplicity’s sake, we usually focus on a control and one, sometimes two, treatments to very tightly focus the Web clinic around that sessions teachings.

Today on the blog, let’s air it out. Let’s look a little deeper into the experiment, including the control and all three treatments our research analysts tested, to see what we learned.

-

Background

This is a homepage test for a B2B company (anonymized to protect Research Partner competitive advantage) offering email marketing solutions for small and large businesses. The primary objective was to increase conversion for a free trial. The primary research questions for this experiment were:

• Which homepage will have the highest conversion rate?
• Which homepage will result in the highest clickthrough rate?

-

Control:

The control page evokes one immediate reaction from users – “What am I supposed to be doing here?”

Okay, maybe that’s a bit exaggerated. But then again, when using this homepage to not only define a brand, but also motivate an action on the part of the user, excess complexity can be a deal breaker. From the outset, we can see that this page is far too copy-heavy, with no clearly identified eye path or primary function.

The user’s eyes are first drawn to the large green box, however, the company chose to not only populate this space with a two-line value proposition, but also included four supporting value statements and two calls-to-action.

(And that’s just the green box…)

Secondly, the eye is drawn to the image to the right of the box. The image, while visually interesting, does not identify this company as an email marketing solutions provider. Likewise, the image does not support the value proposition statement or any of the copy that lies beneath.

Below these visual elements lie three similar-looking columns, replete with forms, bullets and more calls-to-action. Again, the user asks, “What am I supposed to be doing here?”

In this case, the answer would likely be, “Leaving.”

After analyzing the control, the research team decided a radical redesign approach was necessary, in which t hey could address several key factors that shape the thought sequence in the mind of the user:

1. Eye path: Providing visual cues to help the user understand how the content is meant to be consumed

2. Distinguish the objectives: Helping the user understand the difference between competing calls-to-action, minimizing the decision-making process

3. Page flow: Helping the user immediately understand the relationship between different sections of the page

4. Expression of the value proposition(s): Increasing the clarity of the value proposition to keep the user moving further through the process

5. Color: Using color to weigh and prioritize various elements on the page

6. Image relevance: Using images that directly support the value proposition or illustrate some aspect of the core offering (rather than a generic graphic)

-

Treatment #1:

Rather than taking a design mulligan (apologies to readers who didn’t expect me to write this while watching the Masters) and gutting the page, our researchers took a methodical, tiered approach to this radical redesign.

Most noticeable is the shift from the green and brown box and font color to a more impactful blue and orange scheme. The blue background allows the user’s eye to naturally move from the more concise value proposition to the primary call-to-action. Also, we strengthened the headline and sub-headline by reducing its length and making it a more direct (read: more scannable) statement that appealed to the company’s core audience.

By increasing the clarity of the value proposition, our researchers felt it would be more likely that the user would engage with the page and continue toward the call-to-action.

Additionally, note the reduced amount of copy. While not a dramatic reduction, by cutting the text – and subsequently reducing friction – our team was able to focus the user on the calls-to-action, drawing significantly more attention to them than the control.

Our team also removed one of the two calls-to-action from the box at the top of the page, choosing to emphasize the free trial over the product tour. The team weighed these two objectives, but determined that the free trial better represented the company’s primary value proposition, and also was more likely to initiate a clickthrough.

Finally, this treatment swapped the original, generic image with an image of provided email template examples. By using product images, the team created a relevant visual section that supported the primary value proposition.

-

Treatment #2:

In this treatment, our team focused on enhancing the user’s eye path. By reducing the three-column layout to two columns, the vertical eye path is more clearly defined, and the logical flow of the content is more intuitive. Now, the user follows a singular flow from value proposition to call-to-action.

This treatment also shows a further reduction in body copy. Rather than inundate users with extensive copy more suited for the pages that follow, our team chose to emphasize the value proposition and supporting bullet points, leading more organically to the primary call-to-action.

The color scheme was once again changed in this treatment. Replacing the solid color box with a white/gray gradient allowed the bullet points and value proposition to “pop” more naturally as the user scans down the page. Likewise, having the same color background for both the value statements and the corresponding image allows both elements to complement one another, rather than compete for visual attention.

By making these adjustments, all of the focal value points – including the secondary call-to-action for a sample email campaign – now lie above the fold, and directly in the user’s eye path.

-

Treatment #3:

The final treatment is, at first glance, nearly identical to the previous. But there was one minor, and important, difference that appealed to the most basic of notions – people love free things.

While all versions of this page offered free content – whether it was a product tour, sample campaign, etc. – it was the addition of a “bonus”-type offer that seemed to resonate with users. In this treatment, the sample email campaign offer, which required more user involvement to provide value, was replaced with an offer of a free webinar registration.

Though subtle, the free webinar invite not only provided value above and beyond the company’s primary offerings, but also added significant credibility to the overall brand. What was once a company trying to sell email marketing solutions was now positioned as an industry thought leader in the eyes of the prospects.

This newfound value is enhanced by the layout. Because the free webinar offer required less real estate on the page, the “featured clients” section was more than doubled in width, highlighting the recognizable logos and furthering the company’s credibility.

-

Results

-

The conversion rate differences for all three treatments were statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. Every one of the tested pages outperformed the control, with the highest (Treatment #3) showing a 59.36% lift in conversions. Through these tests, we determined these radical treatment pages did a better job at providing a more organized and logical user experience.

Through heavily revamped color use, layout and ultimately, eye path, our team was able to bring this company’s value to the forefront. By properly positioning and emphasizing the user’s options, this new homepage was laser-focused on experience, rather than trying to overwhelm the user with information and unclear next steps.

It may be helpful to think of the homepage as a channel. Remember, the objective of the homepage is to make the user’s choices as effortless, yet as informed as possible, so that you can seamlessly move them to the next step in the conversion process.

-

Some final thoughts…

As we see far too often on B2B homepages, companies are trying to accomplish too many things at the same time, forgetting that users might not have the time required to absorb this wealth of information. In short, they’re confusing users with product offers, free trials, company information, etc., instead of simply stating their value and presenting logical next steps.

Doing so will help ensure your visitors never say, “What am I supposed to be doing here?” again.

-

Related Resources

Homepage Optimization: Creating the best design to quickly meet multiple users’ needs

Homepage Design: The five most common pitfalls and how to overcome them

This Just Tested: Could you spot the better homepage if a 59% conversion difference were at stake?

Web Clinic Replay — Homepages Optimized: How using the homepage as a channel led to a 59% increase in conversions

-

Let me start this post off by asking a question (somewhere, an English teacher is crying).

When is a value proposition not a value proposition?

The answer?  When it’s hidden beneath lesser value propositions.

In this case, an Australian telecom company utilized a page design that effectively undervalued the company’s premier offerings, through an uninviting layout and a distinct lack of focus on its most powerful value statement.

To create a parallel, imagine McDonald’s dedicating its total ad budget to promote a new salad, or Robert DeNiro accepting a lifetime achievement award for “Meet the Fockers.” Yes, theoretically, both situations are possible, but neither would properly support the top value propositions offered by these entities.

Background

Our research partner is an Australian telecom company offering dedicated server and hosting solutions. The company has been decorated with numerous accolades for its services and customer care, and remains the most accredited hosting company in the country.

The PPC landing page in question offers visitors the opportunity to obtain a no-obligation free estimate for dedicated business server solutions.

The goal of the test was to see:

1. Which dedicated server PPC landing page will yield the greatest number of sales leads?
2. Which dedicated server PPC landing page will yield the greatest number of telephone sales leads?

In creating a treatment, our researchers needed to test a number of variables from the existing page, including headline, layout/eye-path, value proposition points, image selection and location, format of the questionnaire, presence of a testimonial, location of the company’s logo, location/size of the contact information, and body text copy, size and location.

Control: Don’t bury your value “down under”

Click to enlarge

The control page led with a large image of a wall of server cabinets captioned on the extreme right with a comparatively small block of text intended to summarize the primary value proposition highlights (Creative samples have been anonymized to protect Research Partner competitive advantage). The image, though full-color, contained largely shades of gray and was not easily recognizable as computer servers (one colleague believed them to be window shutters upon first glance.)

Though the term, “Dedicated Servers” was used above and below the image, as well as in the blue text box to the right, none of the three instances employed any distinct font treatment or attention-getting design. As a result, the most visually arresting page element was the indistinct gray image.

The user’s eye was then drawn to the blue text box to the right of the image. The text was centered in the box and was not bulleted or given any type of call out.  Our researchers found there was potential for significant “banner blindness” as a result.

The next section below the image consisted mainly of a short paragraph of gray-on-white text with no visual cues, such as bolding, underlining, etc. to guide attention.  With the added visual distractions to the right of this copy, the eye-path was cluttered and difficult for a user to navigate.

The copy itself was subdued, with little emphasis on the company’s differentiators. The writers instead focused on terms such as “secure,” “reliable” and “cost-effective” – all terms that support value, but also do little to make this company stand out from the competition.

The remainder of the page consisted of two forms – one with a somewhat contradictory invitation that offered, “For immediate advice – Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX,” only to then request personal information. The other form was a fairly lengthy questionnaire (with optional text entry box, to boot) followed by a “Request a Quotation” button at the bottom.  The call-to-action was located at the end of the page, left-justified, with a graphical treatment that did nothing to make it stand out from the row of well-recognized logos beneath it.

In short, while there was no confusion about what this page offered, it took more work than could realistically be expected of a user to scan around and find it. It almost seemed as if the company was “being coy” and purposely diminishing its upfront value in order to get users to fill out the forms and request more information.

Treatment: Leave no doubt about your company’s stature and value propositions

Click to enlarge

The treatment was designed to test two primary hypotheses about the control page:

1. The expression of the value proposition could be improved

2. The control page caused user friction due to poor eye-path, the amount of information requested, and visual difficulty in locating the call-to-action.

With the treatment page, our research team attempted to test both of the above hypotheses by addressing the value proposition and friction issues.  Beginning with the value prop, a large two-part headline – “Australia’s Most Trusted & Accredited Business Hosting Company” – was added at top-left to establish that the visitor had arrived at a trusted destination. Added visual emphasis was placed on the term “Business Hosting Company” to establish further user confidence.

Below the two one-sentence paragraphs of text that provide an overview of the company’s services, the top value proposition points are emphasized by positioning them symmetrically on either side of a centered image. The image itself was much more easily recognizable as a computer server than that of the control.

Perhaps the most distracting and confusing element of the control page – the lengthy “needs” questionnaire – was eliminated for this treatment, with the revised page design focused on clearly directing the viewers’ eye-path toward the primary call-to-action – the invitation to call or contact a company rep online.

Further value (and user confidence) is established by the image-supported testimonial placed beside a capture form. By placing the testimonial here, our researchers felt that users would experience less anxiety when submitting personal contact information.

Results

The treatment outperformed the control by a relative difference of 188.46%. More than half of the leads generated by the treatment were inbound calls to the telephone number listed on the page. For the control, all of the leads came from contact information entered in the capture form.

While conversion rate increase is big in and of itself, keep in mind that this is a B2B marketer, and like many B2B marketers these leads have a high lifetime value since leads that convert often result in accounts that span several years.

What you need to understand

The 188% relative increase in conversion-to-lead from the Treatment page design suggests that the one or both of the hypotheses have merit.

To maximize the value of this test to achieve the greatest long-term value in the shortest period of time, the research team chose to use a multi-factorial test. And as with any multivariable test, it’s difficult to determine an exact reason for such a lead gen boost without further testing. However, it’s evident from the results that more prospects were inspired to take action after seeing the treatment page. And our past research indicates that this is likely due to reduced friction and subsequent reduction in potential user anxiety.

However, it must be noted that while there were no phone calls from the control page during the test period, there were calls that stemmed from the treatment.  This is strong indication that making the phone number more prominent and eliminating the ambiguity in the contact capture section was an effective approach.

Moving forward…

While the clarity of the value proposition and the level of friction seem to be much improved with the treatment design, there remains the fact that technology (and business) changes at a breakneck pace. Testing a variety of newer and more unique value statements in the center image could significantly increase user confidence, and ultimately conversion.

Still, the 188% boost might as well be qualified in layman’s terms as “night and day improvement.” Yes, it was a limited test. But in that time, the revamped page not only garnered more leads, but brought about a huge bump in person-to-person interaction. And today, when just about everything we do can be anonymized and faceless, this increased level of user confidence cannot be ignored.

(Now, if we could only ignore “Meet the Fockers”…)

Related Resources

Do You Have the Right Value Proposition? How to test, measure, and integrate your Value Proposition online

Landing Page Optimization: What cyclical products can learn from CBS Sports

Landing Page Optimization: How an engaging headline and revamped layout led to a 26% conversion rate gain

Landing Page Optimization: Identifying friction to increase conversion and win a Nobel Prize

While we endure a winter that harkens back to our parents’ most impassioned tales of school commutes (“It actually snowed for six minutes in Jacksonville.” – D. Burstein, 2011) you’d think that a website offering discounted Florida vacations wouldn’t struggle with conversion rates. When you factor in that the website in question is based in the not-quite-sun-soaked United Kingdom, you’d probably think a text-only, free blog page would be more than enough to sell sunny getaways.

Of course, I’m exaggerating (though, as a MECLABS employee, I’m also intrigued by these testing possibilities). Still, as the following experiment shows, even a highly targeted Web page, offering deals exclusive to local residents, can benefit from seemingly minor alterations.

Background

This experiment involves a United Kingdom-based online ticket broker offering residents a series of exclusive vacation packages for Florida theme parks, tours and attractions. The page tested here is for the Universal Studios theme park in Orlando.

The goal of the test was to see:

1)      Which Universal Studios page leads to more booked vacations?
2)      Which Universal Studios page leads to a larger order size?
3)      Which Universal Studios page leads to greater clickthroughs/engagement?

The test involved adding strong headline copy – which reinforces the idea that Universal Studios theme park is a highly-rated choice among the site’s customers (complete with a real-time, five-star rating widget). Additionally, the team made notable design changes, such as adding a photo viewer image gallery and giving more prominent placement to the site’s customer reviews.

In doing this experiment, the team measured both clickthrough and conversion rates for the control and optimized pages.

—-

Control: A text-heavy design

Click to enlarge

The original page was a text-heavy design with only moderate photo/image use – a somewhat small, static box to the right of the dense copy. The photo box was not active, and only featured stock graphics and logos used within the theme park. At no point did users see the type of engaging images that would help them picture what this vacation would be like.

Without an intriguing headline to capture visitor interest, viewers were forced to search for vacation package details in the five to six paragraphs of body copy. Though there was ample use of bold text, without prominent images to break up the copy into more easily scanned sections, it was difficult to browse the page for important information.

Additionally, this layout immediately presented users with two links – one external – before they could begin to read the information below. Likewise, user reviews and comments were located at the bottom of the page, well below the fold and beneath another series of links that encouraged users to leave the page.

The page design also placed heavy emphasis on the shopping cart box, which sat alone in the right hand column, atop an abundance of unused white space.

—-

Treatment: Sell the sizzle

Click to enlarge

As the old saying goes, you don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.

The optimized page immediately enticed readers with its action-oriented headline, “Enjoy 14 Days of Unlimited Access to both Universal Studios® and Universal Islands of Adventure®.” The headline is accompanied by a real-time, five-star rating widget, which gives the viewer an immediate testimonial for the product offered on the page.

The image box was redesigned to cover the entire width of the center column, and was updated to a more active rotating photo viewer, with images that change by a user’s mouse-over movements. Additional static images are placed below the photo viewer, further breaking up the extensive amount of text.

The shopping cart still sits atop the right-hand column, but customer testimonials were moved into the formerly white space, employing an appealing “voice balloon” graphic treatment. These testimonials are now easily seen while scanning the page, further reinforcing the package value.

The images are now more representative of the customer experience, showing actual photos of the theme parks, as well as images of visitors enjoying themselves at various park attractions.

—-

Results

The optimized page outperformed the original by 24% during the initial test period. After the page was switched over completely from the original, the conversion rate remained at a 26% gain above what was observed in the preliminary control test.

We can assume by this series of tests that the additions of stronger, more active images, an intriguing headline, and overall improved page flow not only contributed to customers reaching the checkout page more often, but converting, as well.

And when you step back for a moment and think about these results, they make sense. Try to get into the minds of a potential vacation purchases. Their motivation likely hinges largely on having an enjoyable time with their family. Yet the Control page did very little to help them picture what that vacation would be like.

It’s winter. You’re in the UK. It’s cold. Sure, Spiderman is cool, but what’s in it for me.

Adding visuals of families enjoying their vacation likely helped potential customers envision exactly what they were purchasing, and tapped into their motivations.

—-

Related Resources

Sign up for the MarketingExperiments newsletter

Internet Marketing: Optimizing form fields to maximize conversions

Landing Page Optimization: Identifying friction to increase conversion and win a Nobel Prize

Landing Page Testing: Designing and prioritizing experiments

Online Marketing Research: The MarketingExperiments Quarterly Research Journal, Q3 2010

—-

Quality traffic is essential for any marketing campaign. Shoot, it’s essential for any successful business. You could have a highly valuable product (let’s say a real cure for male baldness), at the best price (let’s say for just a shipping address with no strings attached), and the most optimized website presentation on the interwebs (let’s say it has undergone a year of MECLABS testing), but despite these advantages, if there are no address-owning bald men who can find your website, well then your business will look a lot like me trying to drive a stick-shift.

Ok, crazy example, but the point is this: Quality traffic is essential.

The question for marketers is – where can we find the most quality traffic on the Web? Should we work with Pay-Per-Click (PPC)? Is it smart to invest in social media? Will external website banner ads be worth the costs? There are many options out there, but today, I want to bring your attention to an experiment that compared the traffic quality between two of the most common online channels: PPC vs. Banner Ads.

Now, explaining this test will be a little more tedious than usual because it deals with multiple experiments of a unique multi-step conversion funnel. But, rest assured, if you can just get a bird’s eye view of the optimization strategy, that viewpoint will be sufficient for what I am talking about in this post.

The first experiment

With that said, the company we were working with is a consumer service provider that has both a significant online and offline presence. The goal on their website is to have visitors schedule onsite appointments with a brick-and-mortar store located nearby. This included choosing a store, choosing a time, and filling out some basic information. It was this process we were seeking to optimize.

Immediately, we noticed that the original online scheduling process had significant unnecessary friction. As the process stood, it took each visitor a series of eight steps to make an appointment. Many of the steps were redundant, unnecessary, and even confusing.

So, our first test was a no brainer; we removed four of the unnecessary steps in the process. As expected, this new conversion funnel easily outperformed the original by over 357%.

The second experiment

Now, this increase was for homepage traffic and we wondered what kind of improvement this new conversion funnel would have across other channels (traffic sources) for their website. The partner was no doubt excited about the potential business the new process might generate site-wide.

But, this is where things get a bit interesting. When testing the new online scheduling process with their PPC traffic vs. their banner ad traffic, we noticed a remarkable difference in results. One of these channels increased conversion by 534%; while the other achieved a comparatively dismal improvement of 28% for such radical changes. Why was there such a swing?

Looking deeper into the numbers, our researchers have attributed the swing to the differing motivation levels of traffic sources. Not all channels will convert at the same rate because they represent different demographics at different places in the conversation. And one of these channels for this partner is obviously more motivated than the other.

Was it the PPC traffic or banner traffic?

So which of these sources of traffic do you think is more motivated? Which of these channels saw the 534% increase and which saw the 28%? It’s very interesting at the least to see the difference that channel quality can have, but could you identify the more effective channel?

UPDATE: If you guessed PPC, you are correct. As we revealed in yesterday’s live web clinic, the PPC ad traffic had the increase of 534%, and the banner ad had the increase of 28%.

Now both were increases, so no complaining there, but it is very interesting to see the significant difference in motivation levels. This test really underscores the importance of understanding and tapping into the unique motivations of specific channels in the conversion process.

Now a huge question that remains is why the difference in response? Is banner traffic always this unmotivated? Is PPC traffic always the motivated? I’m sure it depends on the scenario, but I want to hear what you think. When and why will PPC ads outperform banner ads?

Related Resources:

Top Lessons from 2010: What worked and what didn’t in the last 365 days of experimentation

Online Marketing: Your peers’ top lessons from 2010

This Just Tested: How PPC specificity drove 21% more clicks and cut costs 66%

Did you catch our free Web Clinic on Wednesday? The topic was Measuring What Matters: How simplifying your metrics can increase Marketing ROI by up to 75% — and if you joined us, chances are you’re already implementing new ideas and tools to improve your analytics.

If you couldn’t make it, you can view the presentation here and download our free MarketingExperiments Essential Metrics Tool here (Excel file).

Metrics isn’t the sexiest topic, yet it’s one that most marketers have been grappling with for years and still don’t have many concrete answers. In our live poll, 74% of the marketers characterized their experience level with Web analytics as moderate to novice.

There’s a lot more to cover with metrics than our one-hour session allowed: Different tools, the type of website and levels of data, your depth of experience with analytics, to name just a few.

Many attendees told us the big takeaway was our blueprint for distilling several data points into just four key measurements — and using that to get beyond numbers and into your customers’ mindset.

To paraphrase Dr. McGlaughlin, too often the focus with analytics is on us: the actions we’re trying to force or entice, the conversion rates we want to see, the transactions and revenue we desperately need to achieve. Those are valid measures, but they obscure the intentions of our prospects and customers when they visit our sites.

The trick is taking all those raw numbers and using them to create a snapshot of what your site visitors are thinking, as well as what they’re doing. That’s what really helps us adapt our processes and content and improve ROI dramatically.

Several attendees requested another Clinic on this topic, so we’ll likely revisit metrics with a new session in the months ahead. In the meantime, please enjoy the complete Clinic and try our Essential Metrics Tool with our compliments.

We’d appreciate any feedback you have on the metrics Cinic or Tool, and invite you to post any other metrics-related comments you’d like to share.