4 ms·

Ha. Funny that this showed up here. But, after all, it was a hack-ish experiment... So far, 24 invitations have been purchased. Which is amazing, considering t

by dcurtis 16y ago

Ha. Funny that this showed up here. But, after all, it was a hack-ish experiment... So far, 24 invitations have been purchased. Which is amazing, considering that I just put the form up there as an experiment (and a joke) to test a new client-side javascript payments thingy. Turns out, apparently, that people are willing to pay for things!

101north 16y ago
Kudos! Looks like sometimes you just gotta ask.
fookyong 16y ago
if you want to test willingness to pay you should try to recreate real conditions as much as possible to get usable test results. You would probably get a much better response if: 1) the page had SSL 2) you show what cards you accept (i.e. logos) 3) you require the buyer's name (sounds suspicious to not require it) 4) you show a paypal button as an alternative option* It sounds like you're just doing an MVC for payments to see if people would pay. If you're pleased with the MVC conversion rate now, I bet you'd be ecstatic if you implemented the above. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 5~10% uptick in conversion. *anecdotally speaking, I would have totally clicked through if you had a paypal button.
- pclark 16y ago
  do you think #1, #2 and #3 would really make a difference? I would have thought most users (including me) when it comes to payment are simply thinking "blah blah blah take my money"
  - fookyong 16y ago
    I don't think, I know :) Worked in ecommerce, handled millions of credit card transactions, tested extensively.
- dcurtis 16y ago
  Regarding 1, it actually does post the payment over HTTPS via javascript directly to the payment processor from your browser. I wasn't really trying to do a controlled experiment, otherwise I would have done the other things you describe.
- fookyong 16y ago
  dcurtis > yeah I figured the ajax post operation would be over HTTPS, but still - a user would want to see the little padlock sign on the browser regardless :) the illusion of security is just as important as actual security!
basheer 16y ago
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or not (probably) but my philosophy behind paying for one of the invites isn't so much that I felt like I was getting an "honest to goodness" $10 worth of product or direct benefit out of it. I paid the money because I really like your work, I loved the visual style you had going and how smooth it seemed to be, and I figured if I could help in someway to keep you being able to be doing what you're doing and making more awesome things, then it's worth it: a more tangible "like" button or a concrete confirmation that you're doing something right. It's the same reason why I'm a subscriber to Marco's fantastic Instapaper.

by dcurtis 16y ago

101north 16y ago

Kudos! Looks like sometimes you just gotta ask.

fookyong 16y ago

if you want to test willingness to pay you should try to recreate real conditions as much as possible to get usable test results. You would probably get a much better response if: 1) the page had SSL 2) you show what cards you accept (i.e. logos) 3) you require the buyer's name (sounds suspicious to not require it) 4) you show a paypal button as an alternative option* It sounds like you're just doing an MVC for payments to see if people would pay. If you're pleased with the MVC conversion rate now, I bet you'd be ecstatic if you implemented the above. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 5~10% uptick in conversion. *anecdotally speaking, I would have totally clicked through if you had a paypal button.

pclark 16y ago
do you think #1, #2 and #3 would really make a difference? I would have thought most users (including me) when it comes to payment are simply thinking "blah blah blah take my money"
- fookyong 16y ago
  I don't think, I know :) Worked in ecommerce, handled millions of credit card transactions, tested extensively.
dcurtis 16y ago
Regarding 1, it actually does post the payment over HTTPS via javascript directly to the payment processor from your browser. I wasn't really trying to do a controlled experiment, otherwise I would have done the other things you describe.
fookyong 16y ago
dcurtis > yeah I figured the ajax post operation would be over HTTPS, but still - a user would want to see the little padlock sign on the browser regardless :) the illusion of security is just as important as actual security!

basheer 16y ago

I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or not (probably) but my philosophy behind paying for one of the invites isn't so much that I felt like I was getting an "honest to goodness" $10 worth of product or direct benefit out of it. I paid the money because I really like your work, I loved the visual style you had going and how smooth it seemed to be, and I figured if I could help in someway to keep you being able to be doing what you're doing and making more awesome things, then it's worth it: a more tangible "like" button or a concrete confirmation that you're doing something right. It's the same reason why I'm a subscriber to Marco's fantastic Instapaper.