<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Problems with Landing Page Optimization?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grokdotcom.com/index.php/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/</link>
	<description>Marketing blog focused on marketing optimization, improving website conversion rates, search engine marketing, web analytics, word of mouth, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:57:59 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bryan Eisenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/comment-page-1/#comment-572</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan Eisenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://67.59.138.131/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/#comment-572</guid>
		<description>Arthur,

Magazine subscriptions and fre e-newsletters should probably work best with minimal to no navigation. One of the main factors here is the complexity of the sale. A magazine or something for free is a low consideration purchase and something every one gets. Therefore, adding navigation only adds complexity to what should be a simple decision. 

Both Matt and we are not releasing clients test data, just our learnings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arthur,</p>
<p>Magazine subscriptions and fre e-newsletters should probably work best with minimal to no navigation. One of the main factors here is the complexity of the sale. A magazine or something for free is a low consideration purchase and something every one gets. Therefore, adding navigation only adds complexity to what should be a simple decision. </p>
<p>Both Matt and we are not releasing clients test data, just our learnings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur Cohen</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/comment-page-1/#comment-571</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur Cohen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://67.59.138.131/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/#comment-571</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t tested lately, so my data are a few years old. In the past I&#039;ve tested landing pages with and w/o nav off the page, and every time no-nav lifted conversions.

In the preceeding entries, it&#039;s not clear anyone is presenting quantifiable data from tests to refute the no-nav principle, while acknowledging the obvious importance of testing. The arguments are intriguing and thought-provoking, but where&#039;s the data?

In my past tests, maybe the results were related to the product. I was then dealing with paid magazine subscriptions, and there were no alternative sales that I wanted. Regardless, there was no ambiguity in the test results.

Now I&#039;m dealing with free e-newsletters, and I suspect the principle will still hold. We&#039;ll test to confirm.

But as of now, I am on the Larry Chase team, unless proven otherwise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t tested lately, so my data are a few years old. In the past I&#8217;ve tested landing pages with and w/o nav off the page, and every time no-nav lifted conversions.</p>
<p>In the preceeding entries, it&#8217;s not clear anyone is presenting quantifiable data from tests to refute the no-nav principle, while acknowledging the obvious importance of testing. The arguments are intriguing and thought-provoking, but where&#8217;s the data?</p>
<p>In my past tests, maybe the results were related to the product. I was then dealing with paid magazine subscriptions, and there were no alternative sales that I wanted. Regardless, there was no ambiguity in the test results.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m dealing with free e-newsletters, and I suspect the principle will still hold. We&#8217;ll test to confirm.</p>
<p>But as of now, I am on the Larry Chase team, unless proven otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Eisenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/comment-page-1/#comment-270</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Eisenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://67.59.138.131/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/#comment-270</guid>
		<description>Most of the time you do want to remove the navigation, that is a principle not a rule. Matt is spot on. I spoke with Larry Chase about this today and he agrees. Larry is a real pro.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most of the time you do want to remove the navigation, that is a principle not a rule. Matt is spot on. I spoke with Larry Chase about this today and he agrees. Larry is a real pro.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Roche</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/comment-page-1/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Roche</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:47:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://67.59.138.131/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/#comment-260</guid>
		<description>Keep nav? Lose nav? I don&#039;t know that there is such thing as a universal rule.

However, a few years of testing leads to the conclusion that regardless of where you are in the funnel, you should likely eliminate any links that aren&#039;t relevant. If navigation falls into that category, then be gone.

Offlinking on a cart or application can definitely be valuable, however, if it helps to resolve open questions in the conversion funnel. In that case, it is relevant, and I would agree 200% with Jordan.

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keep nav? Lose nav? I don&#8217;t know that there is such thing as a universal rule.</p>
<p>However, a few years of testing leads to the conclusion that regardless of where you are in the funnel, you should likely eliminate any links that aren&#8217;t relevant. If navigation falls into that category, then be gone.</p>
<p>Offlinking on a cart or application can definitely be valuable, however, if it helps to resolve open questions in the conversion funnel. In that case, it is relevant, and I would agree 200% with Jordan.</p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordan</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/comment-page-1/#comment-258</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://67.59.138.131/2007/01/18/problems-with-landing-page-optimization/#comment-258</guid>
		<description>That is EXACTLY what I thought when I read that same e-mail yesterday! I thought the defense against the justification that you want the landing page to maintain the same look as the rest of the site was weak, too.

I say keep the nav on your landing pages. Visitors might find something that interests them more and buy that. Consistency is better than confusing them if/when they find another page on your site.

Maybe remove the nav (or just change them sitewide!) if it consists of flashing buttons that scream &quot;Don&#039;t read the page, just click here!&quot;

If your copy isn&#039;t already compelling enough that visitors can&#039;t click around but must be forced through the funnel, or clear enough that they know what to do next, removing the nav won&#039;t fix the underlying problem.

The other techniques, as you say, were pretty good, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is EXACTLY what I thought when I read that same e-mail yesterday! I thought the defense against the justification that you want the landing page to maintain the same look as the rest of the site was weak, too.</p>
<p>I say keep the nav on your landing pages. Visitors might find something that interests them more and buy that. Consistency is better than confusing them if/when they find another page on your site.</p>
<p>Maybe remove the nav (or just change them sitewide!) if it consists of flashing buttons that scream &#8220;Don&#8217;t read the page, just click here!&#8221;</p>
<p>If your copy isn&#8217;t already compelling enough that visitors can&#8217;t click around but must be forced through the funnel, or clear enough that they know what to do next, removing the nav won&#8217;t fix the underlying problem.</p>
<p>The other techniques, as you say, were pretty good, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
