6 ms·

This is a major pet peeve of mine with new web services. A lot of them are trying so hard to optimize the sign up that you can't even figure out what the servi

by GVIrish 13y ago

This is a major pet peeve of mine with new web services. A lot of them are trying so hard to optimize the sign up that you can't even figure out what the service is and how it works without giving up your contact info. So instead of giving the user a chance to be sold on what you're selling, you've just turned them away before they can even learn what your pitch is. You've killed an opportunity for word of mouth as well. Maybe the idea is to select for users who are so eager to learn about your service that they'll give you their email first. Maybe that kind of customer is worth a lot more money. But I think many people have marketing fatigue at this point, and are only going to sign up for things they know they're interested in. I mean, I wouldn't give my contact info to a store that doesn't even let me into the door until I fork over some info.

lutusp 13y ago
> This is a major pet peeve of mine with new web services. A lot of them are trying so hard to optimize the sign up that you can't even figure out what the service is and how it works without giving up your contact info. That's because of a truth about the modern Internet, which sounds like an old truism about card-playing: if you can't figure out what the product is, you're the product.
- GVIrish 13y ago
  I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. Take Frank & Oak for instance. I've seen a lot of ads for them and I have some vague idea that it's a fashion service for men. How does it work? How much does it cost? I have no idea, I have to sign up to figure it out.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. That's because they all want to hook up, maybe sell you something, and avoid a problem with the Can-Spam Act, to wit: if they e-mail you and you're not a customer, they're in violation, it's spam. If you have signed up, you're a customer, so the Can-Spam Act no longer applies -- they can e-mail you all they want. The really sleazy outfits are those that spam you, and include an opt-out link in the spam mailing. You click the link, which takes you to a sign-up page. The idea is, if you sign up, what you got isn't spam any more -- by signing up, you turn it into a legitimate business contact. The fact that the op-out-link goes to a signup page technically violates the Can-Spam Act (which requires that an opt-out procedure be both prominent and simple), but it seems no one cares about that any more.
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      For such "optouts", the "report spam" button works as intended. If I didn't opt-in to the mailings, it's ethically spam (even if I'm your customer), and thus all your emails rightfully should be treated as emails from a known intentional spammer.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        That's the way I've always looked at it, but the Can-Spam Act perversely legitimizes what once would have been regarded as spam, and that to many, still is. Also, when people opt-out, what's to stop one business from sharing the addresses of opt-outs with another business, who then can drink from the same well? This is a glaring flaw in Can-Spam commented on by many, and it's why a number of influential organizations argued that it shouldn't have been made into law in the first place: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html Quote: "The Senate unanimously approved the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act last week. It requires e-mail users to opt out of unwanted commercial e-mail, instead of requiring e-mail senders to get permission before sending. That approach is backwards, say vendors of antispam technologies and at least one consumer advocacy group."
        PeterisP 13y ago
        This is a problem with a social/technical solution. As you say, according to Can-Spam act it's legal to send spam to people who haven't opted out. On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers. Yes, that's true, and IMHO admirable. The difference is that people who send spam are organized and have substantial resources. Organizations like Spamhaus (which do exactly what you suggest) are under constant threat of extinction by well-heeled adversaries. http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ Quote: "The Spamhaus Project offers congratulations and its sincere thanks to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM), the Dutch National High Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) of the Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD), the Spanish National Police (Catalonia branch in collaboration with the Central UDEF), and any and all other entities involved in the recent arrest announced in regard to the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Spamhaus in March 2013." The bottom line is that it's an uphill battle to fight organizations who have both resources and ill-advised laws on their side.
jessep 13y ago
I'd like to add a little data to this discussion, from the perspective of someone with a minimal landing page that makes you sign up. We (https://workflowy.com https://workflowy.com) built a try-first sign up flow, and a/b tested it against our current minimal signup page, which is a lot like those you describe. Unfortunately, the try-first performed FAR worse. Not only did we get fewer signups (which we expected). The engagement rate for users who had tried first was significantly LOWER. Exact same product. Same first time experience. One group tried before signing up, the other didn't. They liked it less. Isn't that odd? From my understanding, other services have experienced this same phenomenon. Why does this happen? It is hard to explain. It could be some aspect of our try-first design was flawed. But, my guess is that it's something psychological about signing up. I had expected and hoped that the try-first flow would improve word of mouth. I think many do. But it didn't. So I'd encourage as many people to bring data to the table as possible. I've found through doing tons of a/b tests that metrics often don't obey my logic.
- teleclimber 13y ago
  Fascinating. Thanks for sharing your data. There is something about having to put in a little effort up front, and giving up a little, that commits a user to try harder to use a service. I wonder if this phenomenon is a cousin of the well known characteristic that non-paying users tend to be more demanding and less appreciative of a given service than those who pay (premium users).
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Thanks for sharing the information. I guess you are right, it is psychological. It is possible that two reasons contribute: time investment in the sign up that increases the value of the service and feeling of having personal space on the website.
- GVIrish 13y ago
  One key difference with what you've done though, is that through a link on the bottom I can at least figure out what your product does and see a sample workflow. Some of these sign up landing pages have nothing in the way of explaining what something is. But maybe what companies are finding is that people respond more strongly when details are withheld from them.

by GVIrish 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> This is a major pet peeve of mine with new web services. A lot of them are trying so hard to optimize the sign up that you can't even figure out what the service is and how it works without giving up your contact info. That's because of a truth about the modern Internet, which sounds like an old truism about card-playing: if you can't figure out what the product is, you're the product.

GVIrish 13y ago
I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. Take Frank & Oak for instance. I've seen a lot of ads for them and I have some vague idea that it's a fashion service for men. How does it work? How much does it cost? I have no idea, I have to sign up to figure it out.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I think that's definitely the case with free services. But I've even seen some paid services that pull this trick. That's because they all want to hook up, maybe sell you something, and avoid a problem with the Can-Spam Act, to wit: if they e-mail you and you're not a customer, they're in violation, it's spam. If you have signed up, you're a customer, so the Can-Spam Act no longer applies -- they can e-mail you all they want. The really sleazy outfits are those that spam you, and include an opt-out link in the spam mailing. You click the link, which takes you to a sign-up page. The idea is, if you sign up, what you got isn't spam any more -- by signing up, you turn it into a legitimate business contact. The fact that the op-out-link goes to a signup page technically violates the Can-Spam Act (which requires that an opt-out procedure be both prominent and simple), but it seems no one cares about that any more.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    For such "optouts", the "report spam" button works as intended. If I didn't opt-in to the mailings, it's ethically spam (even if I'm your customer), and thus all your emails rightfully should be treated as emails from a known intentional spammer.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      That's the way I've always looked at it, but the Can-Spam Act perversely legitimizes what once would have been regarded as spam, and that to many, still is. Also, when people opt-out, what's to stop one business from sharing the addresses of opt-outs with another business, who then can drink from the same well? This is a glaring flaw in Can-Spam commented on by many, and it's why a number of influential organizations argued that it shouldn't have been made into law in the first place: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/113137/article.html Quote: "The Senate unanimously approved the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act last week. It requires e-mail users to opt out of unwanted commercial e-mail, instead of requiring e-mail senders to get permission before sending. That approach is backwards, say vendors of antispam technologies and at least one consumer advocacy group."
      - PeterisP 13y ago
        This is a problem with a social/technical solution. As you say, according to Can-Spam act it's legal to send spam to people who haven't opted out. On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > On the other hand, it is also legal and ethical to make a list of which senders are sending spam to people who haven't opted in, and try to filter out all messages from such spammers. Yes, that's true, and IMHO admirable. The difference is that people who send spam are organized and have substantial resources. Organizations like Spamhaus (which do exactly what you suggest) are under constant threat of extinction by well-heeled adversaries. http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ http://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/698/ Quote: "The Spamhaus Project offers congratulations and its sincere thanks to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM), the Dutch National High Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) of the Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD), the Spanish National Police (Catalonia branch in collaboration with the Central UDEF), and any and all other entities involved in the recent arrest announced in regard to the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Spamhaus in March 2013." The bottom line is that it's an uphill battle to fight organizations who have both resources and ill-advised laws on their side.

jessep 13y ago

I'd like to add a little data to this discussion, from the perspective of someone with a minimal landing page that makes you sign up. We (https://workflowy.com https://workflowy.com) built a try-first sign up flow, and a/b tested it against our current minimal signup page, which is a lot like those you describe. Unfortunately, the try-first performed FAR worse. Not only did we get fewer signups (which we expected). The engagement rate for users who had tried first was significantly LOWER. Exact same product. Same first time experience. One group tried before signing up, the other didn't. They liked it less. Isn't that odd? From my understanding, other services have experienced this same phenomenon. Why does this happen? It is hard to explain. It could be some aspect of our try-first design was flawed. But, my guess is that it's something psychological about signing up. I had expected and hoped that the try-first flow would improve word of mouth. I think many do. But it didn't. So I'd encourage as many people to bring data to the table as possible. I've found through doing tons of a/b tests that metrics often don't obey my logic.

teleclimber 13y ago
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing your data. There is something about having to put in a little effort up front, and giving up a little, that commits a user to try harder to use a service. I wonder if this phenomenon is a cousin of the well known characteristic that non-paying users tend to be more demanding and less appreciative of a given service than those who pay (premium users).
vdaniuk 13y ago
Thanks for sharing the information. I guess you are right, it is psychological. It is possible that two reasons contribute: time investment in the sign up that increases the value of the service and feeling of having personal space on the website.
GVIrish 13y ago
One key difference with what you've done though, is that through a link on the bottom I can at least figure out what your product does and see a sample workflow. Some of these sign up landing pages have nothing in the way of explaining what something is. But maybe what companies are finding is that people respond more strongly when details are withheld from them.