Checkout Page Test
| VERSION A |
|
How site visitors voted:
VERSION A (70%)
VERSION B (30%)
|
Actual Test Results:
96% more visitors continued with the checkout process when they saw Version A, compared to those who saw Version B. SiteTuners, an optimization firm, used its proprietary TuningEngine technology to conduct this test as part of a series of multivariate tests for Mr Skin, a subscription website that publishes a database of female nudity and sexy scenes in films and TV shows. Visitors were driven to checkout by marketing pages focused on a particular actress, such as Jessica Simpson or Angelina Jolie. The headline and photos at the top of the winning check-out page changed automatically to match whichever actress’s page the visitor had just come from. So a consumer coming from Jennifer Aniston’s marketing page would arrive at a check-out page featuring Jennifer Aniston. Other changes included replacing a light gray “Join Now” button with a green “Get Access” button, changing column sizes so the check-out was clearly the primary column, and toning down security and privacy information so it was clearly present but not overpowering. To our mind, the importance of this test is not which particular elements may have made the difference, (after all that will vary for different sites – which is why you have to test everything yourself and not blindly copy), but rather the 96% lift! The losing page wasn’t all that bad – we’ve seen many worse on hundreds of subscription sites. (Our sister site, SubscriptionSiteInsider.com just published a research report about this). We hope this test inspires many other subscription sites – as well as ecommerce marketers – to run their own checkout tests. If you even get a 50% lift, that’s a lot more customers. WhichTestWon.com is sponsored by: WiderFunnel Conversion Optimization, the full-service testing firm that guarantees your ROI.Click here for your FREE site evaluation – today! |
I think your “which test won” examples should be focused more on legitimate business-to-consumer or business-to-business type sites, rather than what amounts to pornographic type offerings.
Not surprised at the results of this one. Version A was a promise for what you will receive with the subscription, maintaining the “scent” from whatever call-to-action referred the visitor, where Version B was much harder to understand what you were buying.
Whoa! I missed that one by a mile. I guess I’m not a guy into boobies. Version B seemed more credible and had more information that builds transaction confidence (in other words, I’d be more willing to hand over my credit card info to Version B). Version A seemed a little more fly-by-night. But I agree with Linda; Version A held much more promise with the images, and invoked that little bit of “fear” of what you might miss if you didn’t subscribe.
Looks like a great use of technology to customize the experience for each user.
Despite the political correctness or how much you like what Mr. Skin sells, the process of fine-tuning the buying process to this degree is just great marketing & conversion.
Love the “Get Access” button. Promising, accurate, fulfilling the key emotion. Perfect.
Al, Dont be so pessimistic!
Um awesome test. I knew the first Version A would win, because people like pictures, especially of people.(hot chicks at that)
So this was a givin,Love the example Anne, keep up the great work!!!!!!!!
Whether you agree with pornography or not, they are surely the best ecommerce merchants in the world! While of course sex sells, they’ve fine-tuned the mechanics of HOW they can make it sell to an expert level. You can definitely apply the lessons to your own website. Lots of clothing websites show a tiny pic of what you’ve selected in checkout, these guys just make it look more enticing. Pics in checkout rule, OK!
This one was easy, (especially for man I think). If you see the pictures you want to see more, if you don’t see anything, you don’t know that good what your missing.
wow i got this one all wrong. i picked B (even though i like the pictures on A better
) because the button and pictures on A looked like the ones on a scam site. Boy was I wrong!
See Linda´s comment. And Martijns´as well