How can we market better by learning from the attraction principles of fireworks and how it has been anchored to July 4th? What if anything can we apply to our businesses.

Shopping Made Easy

Shoplet makes it effortless for visitors to have their questions answered on the spot, when they need it most. It’s a stretch from the all too frequent task of searching for purchase assurance links, such as return policies and shopping guarantees. Although, there are a number of tests I’d like to see on Shoplet’s shopping cart, they’ve done a great job reassuring visitors of their purchase.

Reassuring visitors by answering their questions is not exclusive to e-commerce sites, but for lead generation sign-up forms as well. When was the last time you tested the effectiveness of your Point of Action assurances?

If you want other proven methods of boosting confidence and trust on your landing pages, sign-up for our Always Be Testing webinar on July 9th, FutureNow’s free monthly webinar series with Google. Hosted by Bryan Eisenberg, Co-Founder & EVP at FutureNow, and Tom Leung, Business Product Manager at Google, you’ll receive practical tips and advice on testing the effectiveness of your marketing and usage of Google Website Optimizer.

Editor’s Note: Peter knows quite a bit about the power of Point of Action assurances. One of his clients will be featured during the webinar and they had an increase in conversion of over 100%.

So why not try something new, like placing an ad on Facebook, where captive users are forced to see it right there in their news feeds?

That’s Virgin America’s strategy. But is it anything new?

Despite the hype, social media ads are rarely different than traditional banner or pay-per-click ads. The landscape has changed slightly, but the need for fundamental persuasion and conversion tactics remains. As always, better planning makes all the difference. Let’s take a look…

A Smooth Takeoff

Here’s Virgin’s latest “sponsored news feed item” — i.e., fancy contextual banner ad that targets only certain demographics:

As you can see, the language is simple and engaging. A time limit (March 28) is set, thus creating a sense of urgency without drilling it into the customer’s head.

Nobody likes to be yelled at, especially not on an airplane. So why yell at them to “BUY NOW”? Virgin knows better, and this ad’s subtlety makes it that much more click-worthy.

A Soft Landing (Page)

The landing page continues the scent trail that started with the banner ad. Notice how the exact wording carries over.

See that? Change may be “in the air,” but Virgin was smart to stick with their original verbiage.

What’s even more interesting is that this landing page is actually the VirginAmerica.com homepage. It was the homepage last week, when the March 28 promotion was happening, anyway. This week, there’s a new promotion, and a new homepage message to match.

Consistency across channels is what ensures the success of Virgin’s ad buys. By adjusting the homepage to match their current campaigns, they’re capitalizing on the persuasive momentum of their various banner ad campaigns. (This screen shot proves that Virgin’s Facebook ads are no different than any of their other banners. Would they change the company’s homepage just to match a persuasion scenario that starts at Facebook? Nope.)

Persuade → Qualify → Convert

Virgin America continues the momentum from click-to-click by keeping it simple and keeping visitors engaged on the active window. By showing all March 28-related promotions on a single page, they’re reduce friction in the buying process.

Virgin uses this page to reinforce the visitor’s original interest while introducing a few more offers, thereby qualifying our needs. We click through, and it’s off to the booking engine.

Like most e-commerce shopping carts, it seems flight-booking engines were made to confuse us. Not Virgin’s. Theirs is intuitive and straightforward. As you can see, several steps are combined into one. It’s the website usability equivalent of the magical airplane stall door lock (which doubles as a light switch, and triples as a switch for the fan).

The only downside to having a site that works this well is that now Virgin needs to make sure people enjoy the flight as much as they enjoyed booking it. But if the real experience is anything like the one online, it looks like they’ve got you covered.

CMO’s should take notice.

While there’s no such thing as a perfect website, you should still try to convert like a Virgin.

They say it’s better to be born lucky than rich. Guinness stout definitely has the rich part down (pun intended), but it seems they were a bit short on viral marketing luck this St. Patrick’s Day.

Guinness made a valiant attempt to make St. Patty’s a national U.S. holiday with their Petition 3-17 campaign. Their argument: Since there are nine times more Irish-Americans than there are people in all of Ireland, and since people of all ethnicities already miss work on March 17th in celebration of all things Irish, all citizens should be allowed to commemorate the day from the comfort of their favorite watering hole. With “a pint of Guinness stout or two,” of course.

To present it to Congress, Guinness needed 1 million signatures by the 16th. On March 17th, they had about 300,000 — a few parades-worth of revelers off their goal.

No worries. 300k signatures of loyal brand advocates is a huge achievement. And there’s always next year, right?

So, let’s take a look at how Guinness.com was feeding the campaign’s micro-site, Proposition317.com, and see what they might do to convert a million in 2009.

Guinness Means Business!

It’s evident that Guinness means business, as a Proposition 3-17 banner owns the Guinness.com homepage:

The banner is clean, simple, and straight to the point. Unfortunately, this falls slightly flat on this landing page:

Once here, visitors aren’t efficiently persuaded to follow through from the driving point (in this case, the homepage). The homepage was exciting and bold, but it didn’t say much about the campaign, which makes this landing page especially key. Since Guinness’s site exists to support its beloved brand, we can assume that most people who visit the site are already fans of the product.

They just need to keep visitors on track to sign the petition.

Testing is Good for You

If Guinness were a client, here are a few things we’d have them test:

• Tone — Rather than leading off with a “raise your pints!” attitude (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and party pictures, they may have benefited from speaking to personality temperaments other than Spontaneous (i.e., Humanistic, Methodical, and Competitive). Other parts of the site do speak to Humanistic visitors by explaining why it’s important to make St. Patrick’s Day an official holiday, but that sentiment isn’t clear on the landing page. Perhaps they could borrow a line or two from the other pages to make the why-you-should-sign argument stronger. (Is your site speaking to each temperament?)

• Better placement of content — Eyetracking studies also show that staring faces distract visitors. People immediately look to the center, then the flashing signature moves the eye to the right, then down to the quotes and pictures of other supporters. Meanwhile, the “Sign the petition” Call to Action is all the way on the opposite side of the page.

• Make the Call to Action eye-catching — The Call to Action needs to persuade and entice people to sign-up, but theirs is encased in a dark gray button and overpowered by the total signatures. Saying something less generic, like “Make it official,” might yield better results.

• Try counting down instead — This last one’s more of a hunch, so I’m curious to know whether any of you might find it more persuasive to sign the petition if they had it counting down from 1,000,000 (a pretty daunting number) rather than counting up. Example: “Only 650,048 signatures needed to make St. Patrick’s Day official. Don’t just sit there, tell your friends!”

Could Guinness have met their goal? I guess we’ll have to wait until next year to find out, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts in the meantime.

Proposition 3-17 may have missed the mark, but it wasn’t a failure. Anyone else fancy a pint?

. .

[Editor's Note: Anyone familiar with the so-called "luck of the Irish" knows that success requires hard work and dedication. Such is website optimization. You should test your luck.]

Banner ads, once clicked, usually evoke the confusion of Alice’s rabbit hole more than the come-what-may optimism of Forrest’s box of chocolates — either way, you don’t know what to expect.

Grabbing attention is tough, and most of us are jaded from past letdowns. So, to work, a banner campaign must direct traffic, showing visitors what they’ll get and why they’ll want it.

Who You Lookin’ At?

One way to get attention is by showing models. TracFone is an example of a company that puts on a human face (albeit a scowling one). Let’s take a look at one of their banners to see how they might improve conversion…

The Valentine’s Day motif grabs attention, as do the girls’ faces, which seem to be looking straight at you. But eye-tracking studies show that we’re drawn to models’ eyes. We end up mesmerized, ignoring the critical parts of the ad.

The folks at TracFone should read Bryan’s post, “How a Pretty Face Can Push Visitors Away.”

Since our attention stays on the faces and eyes, TracFone’s benefits are lost in the background. The all-caps name “XOXOFONE” frames the faces, further keeping the eyes on the upper left-hand side. A simple change in the direction of the eyes to the lower-right side of the ad would direct visitors to the call to action and company logo. (Besides, it might make these girls look like they’re not going to yell at the first guy who invites them to Prom via TracFone.)

Oh, No They Di’int…

From the banner ad, visitors are sent to this busy landing page:

Tracfone presents big, bright red hearts as a marker to connect the visitor. Yet they fail to build persuasive momentum. At this critical stage, the visitor isn’t brought deeper into the buying process. Instead of continuing the scent trail [define] of information, TracFone introduces new information and visuals that create a disconnect with the banner ad it was designed to support.

If TracFone were a Future Now client, here are a few things we’d have them test:

1. Don’t Look at Me! — When using models, make sure the eyes aren’t the focal point. Use an image that directs the visitors’ eyes toward the call to action. Let the copy drive the click.

2. Buy When? — Don’t propose marriage on the first date. There’s almost never enough info on a banner ad to convince someone they should actually “buy now.” Try flirting instead.

3. Consistency is Key — Build on the information and images on the landing page. Help would-be customers make the connection. People will quickly lose momentum to move forward if you present different prices, copy and images than they saw in the ad.

[Editor's Note: Tired of one-click stands? Sick of hiring gold-diggers who don't return the investment? Bring home a conversion analysis your CFO would approve of.]

Why would Crutchfield go against the norm?

While there’s a good amount of info on this product page, are they sure that visitors are more likely to purchase when the call to action sits to the left of the product? Have they at least tested determine, without a doubt, which side yields a better conversion rate and higher average order value?

I want to believe there’s some rhyme or reason to Crutchfield’s logic. Still, I wonder if they really know which sells best.

[Read John's follow-up on how to test this feature: "Add-to-Cart Buttons: Stuck in the Middle With You"]

While this sounds intriguing and may cause a stir on campus, I wonder, can this really bridge the gap in national coverage between the perennial powerhouses and the “What division are they in” schools?

While it may be a start, it’s unlikely that smaller schools will reap the same long term benefits as the household names. Initially, this should increase the support from individual schools by making the games more of an event (”Let’s post that touchdown pass video on ESPNU!”), but it won’t sustain on its own. ESPNU needs to make a concerted effort to highlight videos from all schools, with no bias toward the bigger brand-name schools. If they don’t ensure that there’s fair representation, students and alumni from other schools will stop participating and the experiment will fail. If they’re not careful, ESPNU could easily cave to supply and demand, highlighting content they think viewers want to see instead of promoting the community and its members, which is exactly what drives a thriving social network like NASCAR’s.

With more and more people joining some form of social network each day, ad revenue is pouring into social media. E-Marketer estimates that social network advertising will nearly quadruple in the next 4 years. With such huge potential for a collection of niche online communities (i.e., for smaller schools and for individual sports), ESPNU has the ability to harness all of that growth potential.

If they’re going to do it right, ESPNU should adhere to the 3 triggers of word of mouth by keeping the focus on the online community and its members instead of covering the same old headline-grabbers and stories from the ESPN.com homepage.

According to their ‘about us’ page, “College Tonight focuses on nightlife events and social opportunities both directly on a student’s campus and within their broader communities.” They even claim to be a social network “that promotes actual social interactivity rather than the sedentary lifestyle nearly all “social networks” relegate its users to behind a physical computer screen.”

But how is that really different than what college students already do on Facebook or MySpace? One thing College Tonight seems to ignore is that the internet is the playground for the introverted. Social communities have virtually replaced the pickup line. And, by the way, introverted students already use those other sites to do extroverted things in real life; to go to concerts, promote campus activities, you name it. In fact, doing anything online is an introverted activity.

If College Tonight really wants to peel attention away from Facebook, they shouldn’t define themselves as being “different” than other social networks in terms of how people will use their site. (People who already use other networks will read that message as self-hype.) Instead, College Tonight should try filling the void left by Facebook a year ago, when it decided to let mom, dad and anyone else who wants to, join. They should sell themselves as a network for college students only. “Want to know what’s happening on your campus tonight? Here’s the place to be.” Not only is that what College Tonight was set up to do, it’s the smartest way to get local and big-name advertising revenue. If they tell that story, it’ll be easier for Pete’s Pub (or whatever the local bar may be) to place an ad, and they’ll have cleaner data to help bigger brands target specific campuses and groups.

Although they’re big and getting bigger, there are a lot of concerns about Facebook right now. If College Tonight is smart, they’ll stay small and leverage that by using a Unique Value Proposition that fits.

Otherwise, it’s like David versus Goliath, but without the slingshot.

Landing on the homepage, I was hypnotized by the Flash and interactive design, which must have taken months to program. It showed. (I was on slow connection and had to endure an excruciating load time.) Finally, I was shown one measly, dull-gray shoe. I gave it the benefit of the doubt and clicked on the shoe, expecting to be presented with more colors and styles to choose from. Instead, a new window popped up with no sneaker or link to the online store in sight. They’d sent me to Mongolian Shoe BBQ; a micro-site for a campaign I was unaware of. And although I noticed a trace of copy next to the gray show (after going back to the homepage to figure out what happened), it still felt like the e-tail equivalent of Outer Mongolia.

I started to wonder about Puma’s online business strategy. (Did they even want me to purchase anything? Where the heck are the sneakers or online store? Where am I supposed to go now?) What did they want visitors to get out of their website? As a retail company, the obvious goal of the site would be both branding and e-commerce. In other words, to get visitors excited about their products and brand and, eventually, make a sale. I was ready to purchase, but there were too many usability issues that forced me to browse aimlessly.

A major roadblock for Puma.com com is that it’s top-heavy with (beautiful) design. It’s very image and Flash-oriented and, despite the demand of would-be customers in search of Puma’s sneaker-line, the visitors’ eyes are immediately drawn to the center Flash animation, then to the bottom icons. The small red bag representing the online store is lost amid all the colors and commotion, and the link to the online store in the left navigation is effectively hidden because it’s surrounded by colorful banners. The small, light-gray text — although cool-looking — makes it difficult for visitors to shop.

Current Homepage:

So, what can Puma.com do to be a more effective e-commerce site? They need to provide a clearer driving point (define) to their online store. A simple A/B test on the homepage will have a big impact. How simple? Well, Google makes it free for all and the only thing you’ll lose is time spent learning a valuable advantage over competitors and opportunity cost of course. To be most effective when making changes to a website, proper A/B testing on Google Website Optimizer is recommended.

My Test Page Suggestion:

Which page do you think would convert better?

I recently purchased a set of Sony Ericsson earbuds from Amazon.com. I already knew the type of earbuds, which color, and even the model number I wanted to order. (That’s what we call a “late-stage” visitor.) Amazon didn’t have to do much to convince me to buy. All I wanted was a clear product image, showing what I could expect with my purchase.

I didn’t just want a new set of earbuds; I wanted the Sony Ericsson brand earbuds, since they’re specific to my phone. The product image confirmed that I was receiving a genuine Sony Ericsson product, and I was further convinced by the product title and description. As a repeat Amazon customer, I expected to receive what I was shown (see thumbnail pic).

You’d think Amazon fulfilled my expectation, but no. Here’s what happened…

The headphones were delivered in a flimsy envelope — not quite the bubble wrap-protected box I imagined. The shabby packaging, held together by a piece of tape that looked 10 years past its prime, was an unwelcome surprise. Where was the original Sony Ericsson packaging I saw on the site? It took me about 15 minutes just to be sure this was actually what I ordered (”Is this even an authentic Sony Ericsson product?”). These types of situations are what have kept me away from online auction sites.

Granted, this was a small, $10 purchase. But imagine ordering an expensive watch or handbag online, or even a gift delivered to a loved one. How can you be certain that the product is authentic or will be appropriately packaged and well-presented? We can’t. Instead, we rely on past experiences, product images, and brand recognition to do the job..

I’ve been spoiled by some great e-commerce sites, including Amazon, over the years. They’ve made my shopping experience delightful from start to finish by delivering the product as I imagined it, almost every time. And I’m a loyal customer to those sites. But now I’ve got a strange feeling about Amazon. They’re the industry leader for a reason. They revolutionized online order fulfillment. In fact, they’re supposed to be the gold standard of e-tailers.

Am I expecting too much from e-commerce sites? I don’t think so. In fact, I’m verbalizing what all people who purchase online are thinking — no, expecting. Consumers demand an easy and delightful shopping experience, from the first click to the time the order is in our hands.

I won’t give up browsing on Amazon just yet — they still have great product details and customer-generated reviews — but they’ve lost me as a paying customer for now. And regardless, I don’t see myself buying electronics from them anymore.

When first landing on a site, like most people, I scan and skim the page for important and relevant information that will help me decide whether I’m in the right place or I need to do another search. In SAS’s case, there’s no copy on the homepage that’s even remotely engaging. Instead, I’m immediately drawn to the gold orb at the top banner*. I don’t have a clue what it is, but it sure caught my attention.

What does this image of a large gold ball have to do with their business, anyway? Sorry, but I don’t get it.

Now, here’s where I embarrass myself a bit. Our European readers may laugh — or at least think I’m not very cosmopolitan — but I didn’t realize that SAS was actually Scandinavian Airlines. It’s not a logo I see very often and, in fact, the homepage looks so bland, gray and corporate that, at first, I didn’t even realize they were an airline!

FlySAS.com may as well be in a foreign language, as it easily fails the 4-second test.

Finally, after squinting my eyes and scanning the page a bit longer, I see that “Scandinavian Airlines” is written in microscopic font underneath the “SAS” in the top-left corner. This is unacceptable because, believe it or not, there are uncultured people like me everywhere who’ve never flown SAS.

So, aside from its boring look and feel — which evokes Windows 95 far more than it does an airline — the site lacks a Unique Value Proposition. Nowhere does it concisely explain what it is they do, or why they should bother flying with them.

Frustrations abound. In addition to the site logo hiding the only mention of the company name, the font in the left navigation is too small, there’s virtually no space between links, and — once again — I have to strain to read it. What’s worse is that there’s no copy in the active window (read: center) to direct my next click.

This site makes it extremely difficult for visitors at the early and middle stages of their buying process (i.e., those who need still need to be persuaded to book a flight with SAS).

When I attempted to book a flight, things got really ugly. (Apparently this is what they want me to do, as the booking agent takes up the entire active window of the homepage.) I played around with the drop-down navigation and, sure enough, only one of the fields works(!) In fact, the only field on the entire form that’s necessary is “Select Country”. Once a country is selected, the entire form changes. (Seriously, try it for yourself.)

A few more questions here: Am I choosing the country based on where I live? Are they asking where I want to go?

I continued on SAS’s tour-from-a-blind-and-mute-guide and figured I should select “USA” in the “Select Country” drop-down as my default. Wait, what’s “USA/Canada”? Is there something I should know? Is that good news for our exchange rate at this point? Now I’m really frustrated. I wish there were at least a prominent customer service contact so I could call or email someone for help.

Forget it. I guess I’m not that patient. I’ll just go over to Priceline.com and hope for the best.

[*The "gold orb" seems to have been replaced by a sunflower, which also grabs the eye toward what's usually considered banner ad territory.]

Let’s play a simple game. Tell me what this picture is.

Most of you probably thought of a candlestick or two faces, right? Well, which one is correct? Both are and that’s because we believe what our eyes tell us.

You’d think if you’ve seen one checkout process, you’ve seen them all. How different can putting your name, address, and payment info be? We all like variety in our lives, but shouldn’t this be one of the simplest things? Still, every time I’m ready to checkout, I get thrown a curve-ball and yet another reason to leave the site.

As I scroll down the page, there are forms and fields I’ve never seen before. How long is this process? Why are you asking me this question?

The perception of time and length of the checkout process plays a major role with how visitors view usability. Ask anyone who’s purchased online, and they’ll tell you, just keep it simple, stupid! Yet e-tailers never fail to make it an experience you WANT to forget.

If e-commerce sites want their visitors to turn into satisfied paying customers, listen up:

• Be transparent from the beginning.
Even before your visitors get into the checkout process they should have some simple questions answered. These questions include when the item will ship, what are the shipping and handling fees and what are your return, privacy and security policies. This will prevent shopping cart abandonment and resentment when they have to fill out several forms just to get all these simple questions answered.

• Get right to the point.
Keep it as simple and intuitive as possible. Name, address, and payment info. What else do you really need to know? Don’t distract visitors with colorful flash or crazy questions that make them wonder what any of this has to do with them purchasing right now.

• Don’t make me scroll.
If you can limit the amount of scrolling on a checkout page, do it. The more you make a visitor scroll, the longer they perceive the process to be. If the scroll bar looks like it will go on forever it makes them feel filling out the form will too. Shorter forms that are stacked all onto one page seem more time-consuming than slightly longer forms over multiple pages. Remind customers with a “breadcrumb” page indicator of which step they’re at in the checkout process and how many more steps until they can go back to watching TV. Why does it need to be more than 3? Keep them focused on the task at hand.

• So where do I pay?
Get them in, get them out. Customers who enter the checkout process WANT to give you their money. So, Get the Cash! Clearly show them what they need to do and how to do it. Make each step intuitive, provide assurances at each step, and offer more than one payment option upfront. This is the last place you want them to take a second guess.

If visitors perceive something to be a negative, it probably is. You work hard to get visitors to close. Don’t make it any harder when they want to give you their money. Play nice and you’ll have the most popular checkout on the block.