4 ms·

The first item, long single page designs, has always been a favorite of skilled marketers. It goes back even to pre-web snailmail marketing. In comparison test

by ef4 14y ago

The first item, long single page designs, has always been a favorite of skilled marketers. It goes back even to pre-web snailmail marketing. In comparison tests, longer copy almost always wins. You keep offering more and more reasons to buy, and you keep converting more and more readers. This relates to one of the basic observations about selling: people don't like to change their minds. They won't spontaneously go from "no" to "yes". But if you offer a new piece of information, they can change their mind without admitting they were "wrong" before. Every new piece of information, or new story, is another opportunity for them to get to "yes". Obviously, the copy also needs to be good.

anotherbadlogin 14y ago
Single-page is good, but the item right after that is not: "photo backgrounds." Yeah, that's just what we need as more people are browsing on mobile devices with unreliable (and compromised) download speeds. Not to mention that some providers recompress images, potentially making them look like ass.
jiggy2011 14y ago
I notice this too, but it seems to fly in the face of a lot of people who say "make the page short , people don't want to read". Case in point a lot of startup websites that have one sentence of huge text saying "X let's you do Y with Z" and then a gigantic "SIGN UP" button and nothing else on the page. There's also a lot of pages that seem to do a halfway house and provide a lot of images for re-enforcement. Like this one: http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-mini/overview/ http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-mini/overview/
losvedir 14y ago
> In comparison tests, longer copy almost always wins. Really? I'd love to see A/B results somewhere of this, as it doesn't agree with my experience. Maybe it depends on industry. Or, maybe sufficiently good copy beats out shorter designs, but most people just can't generate that kind of copy. (Though it sounds like we're getting to a New True Scotsman a bit.) When my start-up did an A/B test of our homepage, we found less content won out. Also 37 signals did their series on optimization, and had strong results[1] that shorter beat out long form, too. [1] http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2991-behind-the-scenes-ab-testing-part-3-final http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2991-behind-the-scenes-ab-tes...
- jcampbell1 14y ago
  With a freemium product, I think the short vs long copy really depends. For my product, the average time between first visit and a sale is 5 months. Unless you run the tests for a year, it is difficult to determine which version effects the most revenue/profits. My rule of thumb is that if you have a very solid on-boarding process, then short copy and a giant signup button will likely work well (Dropbox, 37Signals, etc). They transition the prospective customer from mildly interested to an active user via the app itself. If it is not, then longer copy on the homepage to prime the customer for why they need your product makes more sense. When A/B testing, it is important that you are optimizing for active users, not just trying to maximize the number of rows in the user tables. When I run A/B tests, the units are dollars, not percent. It means the tests have to be run for a really long time, but it is common that what is best for revenue, is not always what creates the most button clicks, or the most rows in a database table.
- thornofmight 14y ago
  "According to Bob, short copy performs better when there is low perceived risk, low cost, and low commitment. Also, when the customer has an emotional, impulsive, and “want-oriented” motivation. In other words, if you’re looking to write high-impact copy for concert tickets, designer shoes, or mp3 players…keep it short. Bob states that long copy is the better performer when there is a rational, analytical, need-oriented motivation. Think consumer insurance products or many complex B2B offerings." http://conversionxl.com/4-cases-where-short-home-pages-outperformed-long-home-pages/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ConversionXL+%28ConversionXL%29 http://conversionxl.com/4-cases-where-short-home-pages-outpe...
crazygringo 14y ago
Seriously -- I am dying to get some kind of good, nuanced study on this. On the one side, defending long-form copy ads are David Ogilvy (probably popularly considered to be the greatest advertising genius ever, and who rigorously statistically tested all his methods), and today, companies like Apple. On the other side, are lots of Web 2.0 A/B testing results that basically say, shorter is better. Now, I'm sure there are times when each are right. But I've never heard anyone explain when long-form is better vs when short-form is better, and when each performs worse. Is it high-end products (long copy) vs low-end products (short copy)? Is it "experience" products vs "utility" products? Is it left-brain vs right-brain consumers? Is it impulse buys vs researched buys? I could invent a million ideas, but I want proof, not hypotheses. I am positively desperate for some kind of researched and statistically backed-up explanation that figures out the factors on both sides!
- orangethirty 14y ago
  I am positively desperate for some kind of researched and statistically backed-up explanation that figures out the factors on both sides! Why don't you learn to write copy and test it yourself? You will arrive to the same conclusion that every industry veteran arrives to: long copy out sells short copy. Why? Everyone has different hypothesis. Mine is that long copy allows for the writer to disqualify prospects and attack all buying objections right from the start. When you have those two things working for you, the decision to buy mostly boils down to how attractive the product is to the prospect. Try it out. Learn it. I'll even teach you the basic if you want. If you can program, this stuff is cake. email in profile.
- goblin89 14y ago
  I'd speculate that it's generally easier for people to not decide and conserve their willpower, but we still gravitate towards ‘decision mode’ when about to do something that looks irreversible. Two common cases: a) Easily reversible or just insignificant action, no commitment—you offer a free product or trial, or a paid service that could be easily cancelled. Long copy would turn on ‘decision mode’, but we may want to avoid that, so less info is probably better. Example: Lots of ‘Web 2.0’ services. b) Not easily reversible action—money are required up front, or you're upselling something to free users. Regular people (not yet fans of your product) are likely to consider different options in this case. Long and good copy, therefore, would present more and more reasons to pay. Example: Apple website. That said, I'd like to see a study too.
charlieok 14y ago
> Obviously, the copy also needs to be good. For varying values of 'good'. I think I remember Eben Pagan (aka "David DeAngelo") saying that he split-tested copy with some mistakes and sloppy writing vs copy that was more polished, and got more conversions from the sloppy version. Maybe it gave readers less of a 'slick marketing' vibe?

by ef4 14y ago

anotherbadlogin 14y ago

Single-page is good, but the item right after that is not: "photo backgrounds." Yeah, that's just what we need as more people are browsing on mobile devices with unreliable (and compromised) download speeds. Not to mention that some providers recompress images, potentially making them look like ass.

jiggy2011 14y ago

I notice this too, but it seems to fly in the face of a lot of people who say "make the page short , people don't want to read". Case in point a lot of startup websites that have one sentence of huge text saying "X let's you do Y with Z" and then a gigantic "SIGN UP" button and nothing else on the page. There's also a lot of pages that seem to do a halfway house and provide a lot of images for re-enforcement. Like this one: http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-mini/overview/ http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-mini/overview/

losvedir 14y ago

> In comparison tests, longer copy almost always wins. Really? I'd love to see A/B results somewhere of this, as it doesn't agree with my experience. Maybe it depends on industry. Or, maybe sufficiently good copy beats out shorter designs, but most people just can't generate that kind of copy. (Though it sounds like we're getting to a New True Scotsman a bit.) When my start-up did an A/B test of our homepage, we found less content won out. Also 37 signals did their series on optimization, and had strong results[1] that shorter beat out long form, too. [1] http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2991-behind-the-scenes-ab-testing-part-3-final http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2991-behind-the-scenes-ab-tes...

jcampbell1 14y ago
With a freemium product, I think the short vs long copy really depends. For my product, the average time between first visit and a sale is 5 months. Unless you run the tests for a year, it is difficult to determine which version effects the most revenue/profits. My rule of thumb is that if you have a very solid on-boarding process, then short copy and a giant signup button will likely work well (Dropbox, 37Signals, etc). They transition the prospective customer from mildly interested to an active user via the app itself. If it is not, then longer copy on the homepage to prime the customer for why they need your product makes more sense. When A/B testing, it is important that you are optimizing for active users, not just trying to maximize the number of rows in the user tables. When I run A/B tests, the units are dollars, not percent. It means the tests have to be run for a really long time, but it is common that what is best for revenue, is not always what creates the most button clicks, or the most rows in a database table.
thornofmight 14y ago
"According to Bob, short copy performs better when there is low perceived risk, low cost, and low commitment. Also, when the customer has an emotional, impulsive, and “want-oriented” motivation. In other words, if you’re looking to write high-impact copy for concert tickets, designer shoes, or mp3 players…keep it short. Bob states that long copy is the better performer when there is a rational, analytical, need-oriented motivation. Think consumer insurance products or many complex B2B offerings." http://conversionxl.com/4-cases-where-short-home-pages-outperformed-long-home-pages/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ConversionXL+%28ConversionXL%29 http://conversionxl.com/4-cases-where-short-home-pages-outpe...

crazygringo 14y ago

Seriously -- I am dying to get some kind of good, nuanced study on this. On the one side, defending long-form copy ads are David Ogilvy (probably popularly considered to be the greatest advertising genius ever, and who rigorously statistically tested all his methods), and today, companies like Apple. On the other side, are lots of Web 2.0 A/B testing results that basically say, shorter is better. Now, I'm sure there are times when each are right. But I've never heard anyone explain when long-form is better vs when short-form is better, and when each performs worse. Is it high-end products (long copy) vs low-end products (short copy)? Is it "experience" products vs "utility" products? Is it left-brain vs right-brain consumers? Is it impulse buys vs researched buys? I could invent a million ideas, but I want proof, not hypotheses. I am positively desperate for some kind of researched and statistically backed-up explanation that figures out the factors on both sides!

orangethirty 14y ago
I am positively desperate for some kind of researched and statistically backed-up explanation that figures out the factors on both sides! Why don't you learn to write copy and test it yourself? You will arrive to the same conclusion that every industry veteran arrives to: long copy out sells short copy. Why? Everyone has different hypothesis. Mine is that long copy allows for the writer to disqualify prospects and attack all buying objections right from the start. When you have those two things working for you, the decision to buy mostly boils down to how attractive the product is to the prospect. Try it out. Learn it. I'll even teach you the basic if you want. If you can program, this stuff is cake. email in profile.
goblin89 14y ago
I'd speculate that it's generally easier for people to not decide and conserve their willpower, but we still gravitate towards ‘decision mode’ when about to do something that looks irreversible. Two common cases: a) Easily reversible or just insignificant action, no commitment—you offer a free product or trial, or a paid service that could be easily cancelled. Long copy would turn on ‘decision mode’, but we may want to avoid that, so less info is probably better. Example: Lots of ‘Web 2.0’ services. b) Not easily reversible action—money are required up front, or you're upselling something to free users. Regular people (not yet fans of your product) are likely to consider different options in this case. Long and good copy, therefore, would present more and more reasons to pay. Example: Apple website. That said, I'd like to see a study too.

charlieok 14y ago

> Obviously, the copy also needs to be good. For varying values of 'good'. I think I remember Eben Pagan (aka "David DeAngelo") saying that he split-tested copy with some mistakes and sloppy writing vs copy that was more polished, and got more conversions from the sloppy version. Maybe it gave readers less of a 'slick marketing' vibe?