Optimization Tactics
The Price of Perfection
Recently, one of our regular readers blogged about testing with Google Website Optimizer (GWO).
In the discussion thread, a respondent worried that he may not be able to use GWO because his company’s website has a database-driven content management system. He described himself as a “perfectionist” and it didn’t settle well that content was somehow taken “out” of his site and hosted on Google. Further, one of his company’s consultants commented to him that GWO just “isn’t useful” for a complex database-driven site.
First off, we can tell you from experience* that his consultant is mistaken. (See explanation here.)
Secondly, everyone thinks their own site is complex. Everyone. (Just like everyone thinks their kid is cute enough to be a model for Gap Kids.) But ecommerce sites are pretty similar — and simple. It goes something like this:
- Get customer to site
- Display product to customer
- Help customer decide to buy
- Accept her money with a thank you
- Ship out the goods
- Repeat
Customers don’t care if what we have behind-the-scenes is simple or complex. All the customer cares about is how simple and enjoyable — or not — the experience is for them.
Now, back to the issue of perfectionism. This fear of taking an incremental step lest it turn out wrong, even if the step is toward improvement, seems to evoke fear, dread and a certain “deer in the headlights” mentality.
Ever hear the adage, “Anything worth doing is worth doing wrong”? It’s a great way to think about testing and improvement of any kind, because it deals with the fact that the first step toward improvement always “feels” the hardest. It speaks to the moment when you’re most susceptible to false objections like “It’s too complex!” or “That’s inefficient!”
Let’s get those first steps out of the way. Let’s embrace being wrong, because we will almost surely learn some way to improve. The fact that the improvement won’t be immediate or perfect just isn’t a viable reason not to try. Asking for it to be perfect first and always is a perfect recipe for “never”.
If your company does, say, $5m/yr online and you can raise the conversion rate from, say, 4% to 5% (a 20% lift) because of your testing with GWO — or any testing tool for that matter — you just added $1 million ($5m x 20%) to the bottom line. If I were a CEO and found that so-called perfection was costing me $1m/yr in lost revenues, plus employee salary, I’m pretty sure I could find less expensive, less perfect employees.
I wonder, just how many companies out there are paying millions of dollars a year for perfectionism? And how many imperfect employees, freed from this apotheosis, consistently deliver better results for their companies and their customers?
Could this be why three quarters of online retailers don’t test even though it’s free?
. .
*FutureNow is an Authorized Consultant for Google Website Optimizer.
Related Posts:
Written by:John Quarto-vonTivadar
Is Something Wrong With Your Design?
I’m still settling in from my trip last week to the Internet Retailer Design conference. If you didn’t attend, you missed a great first-time show, so you’ll have to check it out next year.
Over 800 people showed up to hear the speakers and meet with consultants (like me) to evaluate their current websites — and some even discussed mock-ups and prototypes of new versions of their sites. My back-of-the-napkin calculation is that Internet Retailer gave away around $150,000 worth of consultations, but I’ll ask you the one common question I asked several of the companies I met with just for the price of spending a few minutes reading.
What makes you think the new design you’re working on is going to work any better than the one you have today?
I recall sitting with one of the most recognized brands on the Web and him pulling out his mock-ups. They felt that they had issues around how products were presented and how their navigation worked. They offered a complex menu with way too many options in their current navigation, and were hoping to improve it by using a top level menu with a javascript rollover.
“What research do you have that indicates that new navigation will work better than the current one?” I asked. He was honest and said, “None.”
So why don’t you test it?
Internet Retailer did a pre-conference survey and asked the top 500 retailers if they’re doing multivariate or A/B testing, and included the results in their Website Design & Usability Guide.
Amazingly, 76.7% of retailers surveyed don’t test!
Huh? Now that you can get A/B and Multivariate testing tools for free from Google, why aren’t you testing?
We’ve also found that it’s safer to roll out a redesign in stages, in order to avoid the initial drop in conversion that often results from a redesign. Why not roll this out as a series of tests?
If you need help, call us at 877-643-7244 (ext. 3316). We’d be happy to help you make more money before and after your redesign.
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Testing Add-to-Cart Buttons: Stuck in the Middle With You
Bryan walked into my office the other day to point out an interesting item found while surfing: a left-sided add-to-cart button on a product detail page.
We chatted back and forth about the conversion issues involved with placing it there — and in fact, one of our Conversion Analysts, Peter, commented on this very topic in his latest post — but soon our conversation turned to something much more interesting than left-sided calls to action: the testing of left-sided calls to action.
“Do you think they tested it?” Bryan asked.
“Hmm, the Joker in me wants to say Yes, but I’m guessing the money bet is No,” I replied.
Now, that’s not because Crutchfield doesn’t test. In fact, I’ve no idea at all what sort of testing culture Crutchfield nurtures; I’m just saying that in our experience, only rarely does this sort of innovation ever come about from testing. Instead, it’s sadly de rigeur for it to arise from a designer wanting to try something “different”, or an IT staff that doesn’t perceive one shopping cart as different from another, or maybe Matilda the Intern just forget an HTML tag. Anyway, the point is to go with the simplest explanation — which, in 2008, is that most companies still don’t test.
“I think you’re right,” Bryan continued, “cuz if they did test it, it probably wouldn’t do well.”
“Maybe some Clown in IT or Marketing just wanted to be ‘kewl’.”
Here’s what we’re talking about, as shown on Crutchfield.com:
Intuitively, I hope you’ll agree with us that right-sided feels like a better than even-money bet (though that in itself is a reason to do a test) — but what’s the point of leveraging your intuition to be “directionally correct” unless you eventually try to back it up with some evidence that you’re actually correct?
That started me down the road thinking about how to actually test this hypothesis.
(I can be wordy, so if you’ve lost the trail of thought, the question is, “Which converts better? Right- orLeft-sided Add-To-Carts?” and the hypothesis would be, “Right-sided Add-To-Carts convert better than Left-sided Add-To-Carts.”)
Here’s where it gets interesting: The supposition is that most Web surfers are so used to right-sided Add-To-Carts (and right-sided Calls-to-action, generally) that a left-sided one is bound to produce some cognitive dissonance. It might not be consciously noticed — less so on “narrower” sites and more so on wider ones — but the placement on the left will “feel” odd.
With that in mind, just how do you go about running a test you already know has a skew to it? How would you really determine whether the Clowns or the Jokers win The Great Add-To-Cart Positioning Debate of Aught-Eight?
Here’s what I would do: First off, start with the most obvious test, because we have to get a quick benchmark of just how far Clown is from Joker. Throw some percentage of traffic at the left-sided Add-To-Cart — enough for some statistical significance — and see just how well Right does vis-á-vis Left. (The fascinating thing about intuition is that a fair percentage of the time it’s fabulously, gloriously, achingly, wrong — and if this is one of those times, better to find out early and move on to the next good idea.)
Assuming we’ve shown some evidence of the skew in favor of right-sided shopping carts — otherwise, why continue reading this post? — how do we go about removing the skew that comes about from people being “trained” that right-sided is “normal” to answer the real question: If folks weren’t biased by convention, which side converts better?
To do that, what you’d really want is to look among your customers who’ve already successfully converted using one particular side and to present them with similarly-sided add-to-carts in the future (hmm, might have to set a cookie!), so you can gauge what the conversion rate is for people who’ve shown at least some indication that they can successfully convert.** The idea here is that, all else being equal — something the pre-existing bias hurts — the true question should be, “Do people actually have a preference for sidedness at all”?
By picking only from those who’ve successfully converted previously, you’re making a first attempt to say, “Hey, at least these folks don’t seem to be impeded by a systemic bias”; therefore, those who buy consistently using left-sided calls to action might then be expected to convert at approximately the same rate as those who buy consistently using right-sided calls to action.
“And surely,” you might argue, “those who show a preference for left-sided add-to-carts should convert better when consistently presented with left-sided add-to-carts than Right-Siders who are suddenly presented with a left-sided add-to-cart.”
See, you’ve switched the tables.
Get it? In short, you try to come up with series of tests — a Testing Campaign, if you will — which attempt to disprove the way your original hypothesis was leaning (we figured Right would do better, so let’s design tests that indicate when Right does poorer), and let us challenge any underlying bias (i.e., that Add-To-Cartss typically appear on the Right) that gives unfair advantage.
Well, those are my thoughts on the subject. What I hope you got out of that is that a “culture of testing” means thinking as deeply about the design of experiments as it does their performance.
I’d love to hear more about you. Are you a “Clown” or a “Joker”? Or are you just “Stuck in the Middle”? Would your brand loyalty or the customer’s familiarity with your site’s User Interface simply override any preference you have for being a Clown or a Joker?
- - - - - - -
**A few readers will feel reassured to know that, in actuality, you’d still send at least a few visitors who preferred one Side to see an opposite-Side call-to-action once in a while just to keep things honest; enough to get insight from the data, but not enough to cost the company too much from the loss from the expected conversion differential. I figured I’d say that as a footnote before some Sharp Tack out there writes in to scold me. 
[Author’s Note: What’s with all the Clown and Joker references, you ask? From the song “Stuck In The Middle With You” by Stealers Wheel (c.1973), comes the lyric “Clowns to the Left of me/Jokers to the Right/Here I am/Stuck in the Middle with You.” I was bound and determined to get that song into a post sometime this month, just to stop humming it in my head. There. Now it’s your problem. 
]
[Editor’s Note: Want more profitable ideas on how to beat assumptions with better testing? Take a look at our free website testing resources, including John’s A/B testing white paper.]
Related Posts:
Written by:John Quarto-vonTivadar
Free Download: 10 Tips to Start Optimizing Your Website
Want to know what stops website visitors in their tracks? Ready to take the next step toward optimizing your site? Want to fix your website today without a(nother) redesign? Need fresh ideas?
If so, we recommend you hire Future Now immediately. Or download our free white paper.
You will LEARN:
- How to find trigger words that excite visitors
- Tips for profitable calls to action
- How to optimize product images
- Tips for optimizing headlines
- How to optimize your optimizing (tips for effective testing)
Who SHOULD download this white paper:
- Small business website marketers
- Anyone looking for new ideas for testing and optimizing
- Anyone looking for an edge over their competitors
- Anyone who just getting started optimizing
- Anyone frustrated with their current optimization efforts
- Anyone looking for a more sound and logical process for optimization
- Anyone responsible for a marketing channel and needs life to be easier
- Anyone getting mixed results with their current optimization efforts
Who SHOULDN’T download this white paper:
- Lazy people
- People who hate change
- People who aren’t willing to commit to serious changes on their sites
- White paper junkies who print ‘em out and never read them (honestly, save a tree)
Related Posts:
Written by:The Grok
Guarantee Holiday Sales
In cubicles and corner offices around the e-tailing world, eager marketers and merchandisers are cranking up for the 2008 holiday season, with visions of plump virtual shopping carts dancing in their heads.
Meanwhile, shoppers go about their lives. Time ticks. The burden of seasonal shopping grows bigger as the number of shopping days until Christmas gets smaller.
Each year the season seems to start earlier. Shoppers are faced with more choices than ever, and online retailers are getting savvier, offering better wares and new technologies all designed to increase sales, average order values, and conversion rates.
How can you get a leg up on competitors? How can you ensure visitors buy from you and not the guys and gals on the domain just a few clicks away?
One powerful tactic is the return/exchange policy point-of-action (POA) assurance.
With current economy concerns, gift buyers are likely to be more frugal than they were in 2006, and online retailers must address that reality.
Continue reading my column on ClickZ…
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Why We Teach Analysis Without the Analyst
The eMetrics Marketing Optimization Summit is right around the corner, on October 14 - 17 in Washington D.C. It is THE event for web analytics for schmoozing other professionals interested in optimization.
Here is some video footage of my presentation from the last eMetrics Summit San Francisco this May. Maybe this short clip will wet your appetite for the event and perhaps even get you thinking about optimization and the opportunity cost game.
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
“Target” Blind Accessibility to Boost Conversion
A precedent-setting U.S. Federal class action lawsuit ruling has been filed against Target will that would require the click-and-mortar retailer to make its website accessible to the blind and visually impaired. Online enforcement of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) could mean that e-tailers nationwide would have to ensure their sites are accessible to blind visitors, or they’ll leave the door open for another good ol’ American class action suit.
Target had 10 months since the beginning of the court case, and, so far, has refused to make minor changes to their site. The main complaints with Target’s site are as follows:
- No alt tags on its images for screen readers to tell what an image contains
- Visitors cannot complete their checkout process without the use of a mouse
- Lack of descriptive headings to mark separations in a page
- No explanations for visual maps on the site.
These are simple changes that are fundamentals to web design. In fact, a list of guidelines for creating blind-accessible pages makes recommendations that are very similar to what we at Future Now advocate to increase conversion for all visitors — visually-impaired or not.
- Use descriptive alt tags
- Speak in the active voice
- Be clear and concise
- Write copy at a 5th grade reading level
- Avoid jargon
- Use bulleted lists to break apart key points
- Use white space effectively
- Use clear and accurate links that tell the visitor where she is going
- Use descriptive titles, headings, and headlines
- Make one key point per page
- Use the simplest words you can to get your point across (think “Occam’s Razor“)
In his ClickZ column, Bryan Eisenberg places accessibility as the second level in the “Heirarchy of Optimization“.
Want to know if your site is accessible? Here’s a list of elements you can use to check if your website is accessible to the blind and visually impaired, and to make sure you’re not the Federal Government’s next Target:
- Can you enlarge the text on your site and still read it? (press ctrl +)
- Can you change the color scheme of your browser and still read everything clearly? (This is for people who are dyslexic or colorblind.)
- Test your web copy for readability (i.e., grade level), as well as the percentage of active-voice sentences.
- Is it possible to navigate your site without a mouse? If so, can you successfully complete all necessary tasks?
- Do you have descriptive titles, headings, and headlines?
- Does your site rely heavily on vague links, like “click here“.
- Do you describe any image maps (define)?
- Do you use descriptive alt tags?
- If you have PDF files, do you have a link to Adobe Access? Most screen readers cannot read PDF files.
- If you have pages that rely on Flash, Java, or other plug-ins, are there alternate links to plain HTML pages?
- Run your pages through this tool: webxact.watchfire.com
The Internet has empowered many people to overcome visual limitations. But the Target ruling case raises some great questions. For instance, do you think the Americans With Disabilities Act, which created building accessibility standards, should force websites to do the same?
What do you think? If it’s not already, will you make your site accessible to the blind?
Related Posts:
Written by:Ronald Patiro
Conversion Rate Basics
How much time, money, and resources do you spend optimizing your conversion rate?
If you’re like many of us, the answer to this question would choke a rhino.
Tally up the megabytes of spreadsheets e-mailed to execs, the time exhausted gazing at analytics dashboards, and the invoice stacks courtesy of technology vendors. Then, count up the efforts poured into your PPC (define) campaigns, SEO (define), and A/B and multivariate testing.
It’s not for a lack of effort that the conversion rate needle refuses to budge. More times than you can imagine, overlooking the basics is the culprit.
What good is tweaking a high-performance engine if you neglect to change the oil?
Here are some conversion rate basics you can’t afford to ignore.
Continue reading my column on ClickZ…
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Screencast: Optimizing E-Commerce Product Pages
For this screencast, after recalling a post on the top-converting e-commerce sites, I chose to focus on Fingerhut, Best Buy, and TigerDirect. Like many of the other top-converting sites, these are backed up by print catalogs as well. So, what I’m going to show you now is what each of these sites does well and offer a few pointers for how they could improve their product pages to convert better.
I’ll discuss the importance of:
- Formatting — Are the copy and links readable and easy-to-follow?
- Image Views — Do I get multiple, detailed views of the product?
- Calls to Action — Are these sites doing enough to push customers’ buttons?
(For those reading this in RSS, click here for the video.)
As always, we hope to hear more suggestions of websites to review. We hope to hear some good ones, and we’ll try to make sure there’s something everyone can learn.
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Can You Stop People From Cheating Digg?
Bennet Haselton, a frequent Slashdot contributor, shares his ideas behind preventing the gaming of Digg and services like it.
Have you ever seen people put a link in their profile to their HotOrNot picture, saying “Go here and vote me a 10!!”? Similar to the people who send links to their friends and say, “I just posted this, please Digg this for me!” The difference is that on HotOrNot, it doesn’t work. On HotOrNot, you can cast votes for a picture in one of two ways. The first way is to go directly to the URL for someone’s picture; the second way is to load the front page, where a random picture from the database is selected at random, and vote for whatever picture comes up. The catch is that the votes that you cast by going directly to someone’s picture, are simply ignored in calculating the average score for that photo. The only votes that are counted are the votes cast for random pictures displayed on the front page. So if you want to manipulate the voting for your own photo, you’d have to load the front page hundreds of thousands of times waiting for your own picture to come up repeatedly, which is hard to do without being detected.
It’s an interesting read. I wonder, do you think this is foolproof? Would it work? I’ve never met an algorithm that couldn’t be gamed at some point or another.
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
