3 ms·
Not sure what's wrong with writing, but candyjapan.com without a video on the page converted at 0.5% and with video at 1.3%. Of course no reason not to have bot
by bemmu 15y ago
Not sure what's wrong with writing, but candyjapan.com without a video on the page converted at 0.5% and with video at 1.3%. Of course no reason not to have both video AND text.
Granted the contents in the video are not the same as the explanation text is, so might be attributable just to the difference in content. Or possibly just random chance (36 conversions 3784 visits).
- TeMPOraL 15y ago36 conversions/3784 visits sounds like random fluctuations to me. Also, was it video+text, or video instead of text?
- worldvoyageur 15y agoAnother way to say conversion went from 0.5% to 1.3% is to say visitors were over 2.5 times more likely to convert if there was video than if there wasn't. In those terms, random fluctuations seem less likely as the reason for the difference.
- TeMPOraL 15y agoYes, but it's just because it sounds different. IMO both the absolute and relative number of people lay in a range of what I would expect to be random fluctuations.
- xyzzyrz 15y agoFWIW: > chisq.test(matrix(c(10,3784/2,26,3784/2),2,2)) Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction ... p-value = 0.0129