Ecommerce Homepage Test: Copy vs. Video
| VERSION B | |
How site visitors voted:
VERSION A (41%)
VERSION B (59%)
|
Actual Test Results:
A prominent autoplay video, vibrant colors, bigger images and a bigger navigation bar increased the number of sales per 100 unique visitors by 35.89%. Plus, revenue was 60.43% higher for this version during the test. DM Contact Management, an internet services company, conducted the A/B split test using Vertster’s optimization platform on Leading Edge Herbals’ Genf20 HGH homepage, which hadn’t been changed since its launch in 2004. We would not expect these results to hold true for all other sites and demographics. Internet audiences do not always respond well to auto-play homepage videos. And, some demographics (especially often older women) may respond better to copy-heavy, ‘clinical’-feeling design for health-related products. Big takeaway: It’s worth testing radically different variations on your homepage design occasionally to see if something outside your normal box can shake up sales. Any homepage – or landing page – that hasn’t been tested in a few years deserves a new shot. WhichTestWon.com is sponsored by: WiderFunnel Conversion Optimization, the A/B and multivariate testing firm that guarantees Conversion Rate Lift. Click here for info on improving your site’s results – risk free – today! |
I would also attribute the lift to much more prominent use of “social proof” and expert endorsements as well. These things may actually have made more of a difference than the video! If you look at version A, there is no prominent use of either.
Well, I was bound to get one wrong eventually…
I chose A just because of my own personal bias against videos. I know that I would still prefer to read something well written on the Web than watch a video, at least when it comes to news, information, and decision-making.
I have thought of running a video myself briefly explaining the benefits of my product plus even doing a video help section but was not sure how to shoot the videos for maximum results.
I would be fascinated to see the breakdown on these results by gender.
My initial response was – men will absolutely do better with Version B – the headline focusing on “#1″, the images of an older man being loved on by a younger woman, the video (great for shorter attention spans) with the doctor with his credentials hanging in the background – all of these elements should have increased conversion with men.
For women, I gave the test a 50/50 chance. I think the bolder colors and video would be a plus for women.
The author mentions older women “may respond better to copy-heavy, ‘clinical’-feeling design for health-related products.”
I agree older women(and indeed most women) have more questions that need to be answered and often look for more detailed product information.
As for “clinical feeling” design – I think they are looking for something that inspires confidence – but lifestyle images help. The problem with the two customer focused images is they both include an older man and a younger woman. It’s a subtle nod to his vitality rather than hers.
Super interesting. Thanks for another awesome test!
Definitely a lot more than video that contributed to the lift.
We were very surprised with the results when we ran the test, but the projected improvement has remained accurate since we switched the site over to the new version fully.
Overall it’s been one of the most successful tests we’ve run to date.
This may be a bit misleading. Those pages are very very very different. The video is not the only difference between them.
Did you guys tracked how much % played the video?
Did you guys tracked how much % played it to its end?
With so many variables changed from page A to page B, you cannot say acurately that it was the video.
The results explanation makes it clear that it was all the elements that made the difference:
“A prominent autoplay video, vibrant colors, bigger images and a bigger navigation bar increased the number of sales per 100 unique visitors by 35.89%.”
But it was kinda… a little of something closer to useless (of course it wasn’t useless). However, for some that want to know if video will help in a given situation, that test didn’t help. The same for people wanting to add vibrant colors, bigger images, bigger navigation, etc.
Bottom line: I think this test changed too many variables to be really useful.
It was like testing two very different sites selling the same product.
I AM EXAGGERATING IN THIS COMPARISON, but in my opinion this test was like testing sun.com against ibm.com – different sites, different strategies, different colors, different everything.
Often major site or landing page redos start with radically different a/b cells just to get a sense of the overall direction testing should go in. Then, the team can roll out multivariate testing afterwards on each element on the winning page to learn what really made the difference and further optimize it.
The lesson here wasn’t whether video or extra images work or not (that’s *always* going to be different for different brands and demographics). The lesson is that you should be testing radically different pages sometimes — pushing outside the box to see if a completely different take can shake up results. You can optimize the bits and pieces of the winning page for ages after.
There’s a place in your testing strategy for both approaches. There’s just no place for “this always works better period” page design rules.
The video page looks much more professional. That has to be a concern for people ordering drugs over the internet.
I always want to know where the visitors are coming from. Who are they and and how do they get to the site? Have they already been “pre-sold” or influenced positively somewhere else?
To add bit more…
It’s hard to imagine anyone just happening upon a site with an autoplay message and then handing over their credit card.
It would also be important to know the actual sales message and delivery in the video.
So many variables not accessible in this example.
I think neither of those pages would do well on a different market. Or maybe I’m just in the wrong demographic. Looks like spam to me. Also, it’s not that often I see as much content below the fold.
I’d like to know the difference in response between North America and other parts of the world.
If I’d get my hands on the site I’d test a much more drastic alternative.
Gotta love testing though..
One other thing – the home page hadn’t been changed since 2004 so repeat visitors would have gotten bored with it and thought the product was stagnant, too. The video footage (if you’re into that sort of thing) might confirm that you were making the right decision.
One major downfall here – Version A has better potential of ranking higher than Version B in search engines. I guess it’s a constant battle between usability and search engine optimization.
Hats off to Leading Edge Herbals for A/B testing. Especially in ecommerce, it seems like a no-brainer to marketers; to some clients, it seems like marketing hoo-ha.
Speaking of hoo-ha, how many of us commenters are A/B testing? We talk the talk about conversion optimization at B2B Communications; without A/B testing our own top pages, though, who knows if we’re missing oodles of opportunities.
@ Rebekah, I am using GWO, I have 2 tests running right now.
Anyone else notice the price difference? 1 year supply of version B was actually $90 more too.