3 ms·
The takeaway from the email study is not that ugliness converts. Versions A and C have other navigation/messaging in the spotlight. Version B has the fewest di
by teye 16y ago
The takeaway from the email study is not that ugliness converts.
Versions A and C have other navigation/messaging in the spotlight. Version B has the fewest distractions.
Poor illustration of the point, if you ask me.
This is like assuming your users are stupid. Strive for accessibility and ease of use, not ugliness.
- aresant 16y agoFair comment. But the closing statement in that paragraph is: "It’s no surprise that the winning test lacks design elements or complexity, keeping it simple collects the sale." So ultimately, I think we're all on the same page. Simple & clear messaging trumps complexity.
- datasink 16y agohttp://www.mrgreen.am/affiliate-marketing/the-ugly-truth/ http://www.mrgreen.am/affiliate-marketing/the-ugly-truth/ I found this article to have better examples. In particular, the ChristianMingle ad -- same wording, different treatment, different results.
- dagw 16y agoWhat many of those examples really shows is that people will put up with amazing amount of shit to save money. Take the Ryan air site for example. Everybody I know hates that site with a passion and do everything they can to avoid both the site and the airline. Most people check every other available option before reconciling themselves to dealing with Ryan air. However since they offer a competitive product at very competitive prices people put up with horrible usability and service. So no, ugly design doesn't sell, cheap sells, and if you're cheap enough people are willing to overlook ugly.