One-Product PPC Landing Page Test
| VERSION A |
|
How site visitors voted:
VERSION A (47%)
VERSION B (53%)
|
Actual Test Results:
Version A turned 84.6% more visitors into immediate online buyers compared to Version B. That’s quite a remarkable difference in conversion rate when you consider the traffic source, product, offer, guarantee, headline copy, and cart all remained the same. Full-service testing firm, WiderFunnel Conversion Optimization, used Google Website Optimizer to conduct this A/B test on Speedwinds Nutrition Inc.’s main PPC landing page for the HGH supplement Sytropin. As this was not a multivariate test, we can’t say for sure which particular creative elements caused sales to go up. But, overall it seemed to us that the winning page focused more on benefits – a gloriously youthful life – and the losing page focused more on the product. Most of all, this test is a testament to the value of testing itself. 84.6% more sales just from a few page changes! In a recession to boot. You can’t beat that. 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! |
The photography might have something to do with it. I have seen other cases where pictures of people (or just parts of the human body) as opposed to objects have boosted landing page conversion.
I’m surprised at the omission of one comment about the difference between the two pages that I think probably made all of the differences in the conversions. To me, it was obvious that page A would convert better because right at the start of the subheading was “FDA Approved,” which I couldn’t find mentioned in page B (granted the copy was a little hard to read in the small screenshot popups).
You have to address potential buyers’ fear, especially with something like a growth hormone, and the inclusion of the FDA’s approval speaks directly to that.
So all that hooey about breaking up the big blocks of content doesn’t matter when you compare it to sexy pictures of white people.
Everything makes so much sense now.
I voted wrong again, which goes to prove the maxim: you can’t judge creative work by anything but results. Looking again, that is a mighty handsome couple in version A!
Great presentation and fascinating results, but now I have more questions.
What were the deciding factors? There’s a different headline, subhead, photo and presentation of text.
You might be right, Anne, that the copy drove the results, but I couldn’t read the smaller text.
And how did these landing pages match up to the original ad?
I hope the next tests they do will try to answer these questions.
Also, I’d be curious to know what the real numbers were – total number of orders.
Unbelievable. I thought for sure Version B would be the champion. Paragraph beat the bullets this time, hey?
I’m shocked that Version A lost in the voting (as of right now at least). I don’t know much but when I saw Version A with its young, virile, happy cavorting couple, and Version B with a bottle, I knew that A had to be the winner.
The target audience (men) is interested in taking HGH to feel youthful and that (for men at least) often is linked to sexual abilities, stamina, “feeling energetic” and so on. So the version with a woman on the guy’s back more clearly conveys and alludes to the BENEFITS of the product. Plus the product placement in that picture seems intentionally phallic to convey the benefits in that regard as well. Smart copy…
I picked the winner in one second. What is more interesting – buff bods in intimate contact or a blue bottle? Not to say that’s all it takes, but given equivalent content, pix of ppl win.
2 key elements which made me vote for A:
- showing people is more engaging
- the money back guarantee is on a “hot” spot of the page, right in the trajectory of the eye reading the page in diagonal (when it’s in a very cold space on the left in version B)
I think there are a few reasons, but I am thinking that the headling and sub heading text were not only more persuasive (mentioning FDA), but much more visible. I doubt many people in Test B actually read the headline, rather skipping over it to to bullets and call to action. With Test A, the headline is the 1st thing you would read.
Great test.
Very thought provoking test, but there are just too many differences between the two ads to be able to definitively say what made the difference. People shot vs product shot, FDA mention in subhead vs no mention,
copy with white space vs bullets, etc. Also, the entire tone of A is very different from B. A is more conversational and discreet, especially in mentioning sex. Who’s to say at this point- but it certainly got us all thinking.
Normally I get them right, but this one had me fooled
Although I was inclined to choose B, Version A caught my eye thanks to:
- The image of the people
- The 90-day money-back guarantee in the headline and starburst
- The FDA approval in the headline
- The additional benefit statement “Look and Feel Younger…”
It would have been interesting to have run tests with variations in copy only. The focus for testing often tends to be on design, but this is a good example of how the white space theory (i.e. bullet points) lost out to denser copy. Though I’m not a fan of long-copy landing pages and emails, they still seem to have a place in DM campaigns.
I agree with Jackie and Jason. The FDA comment is important – that would have made all the difference for me had I seen it. Otherwise, my personal experience tells me that bullet points are much more effective, and so are lifestyle shots of people. This thing begs for a multivariate test.
Instead of overthinking any number of the different page elements, I’d guess that guys who are looking to buy HGH online will be quickly swayed by the photo of the couple — not the bottle — and the guarantee and FDA approval just lock in the decision to proceed. The A treatment mixes sex and emotion vs. treatment B’s boring product hero shot. Combine the buyer’s real goals and motivations (get ripped, get women) and remember that sex still sells, and you’ve got an 85% gain!
It would be interesting to see a heatmap of these two treatments …
A resonated for me as a marketer and a person. It was mostly the picture. It gives the impression that actual people are using the product. You’re selling the happiness you’d receive, not just the plain bottle.
Plus I think the bulleted list with the checkmarks on “B” was a little tacky, old school and seemed like something that you might receive from random email marketers from time to time.
“A” had features and benefits while “B” only had features. This is IMO, of course.
I have to say I chose “A” mainly because of the photo and the way the copy followed that theme. I thought “B” looked to be the obvious choice (bullet lists, good headers, etc…) but the picture in A told me it was likely the winner (for this type of product).
I worked with a group that sold a similar type of male supplement and each one with photos converted higher in every case.
A picture (when chosen carefully) can add a ton of value to a page and really help conversion.
To bad they can’t rollout with this. Since HGH without a prescription can’t get FDA approval. Go to their site and see…no mention of approval. The government would shut down this creative so fast! (Believe me… I know how the FDA has been cracking down on wording like this) . It sure does sell though…
I’m sure there are lots of reasons, but here’s my observation:
It’s about emotion. To break through the clutter of media you have to stir an emotional response FIRST. That emotion grabs the readers attention and allows you then to keep it by immediately addressing their motivations (What’s in it for me?).
Look a the bold ‘Fountain of Youth’ statement, my eye was immediately drawn to it.
I didn’t hesitate to choose A, option B didn’t stir any emotion in me and I had no desire to look further.
Take a look at Eric du Plessis’ book “The Advertised Mind” for more on this concept of emotional response first…
I love WhichTestWon.com. It’s thought-provoking and an interesting study in human psychology. So don’t get me wrong when I say this.
When I read the comments on this page, I’m reminded of focus groups. As readers, we’re being asked to vote on landing pages based on our own response, and emotion and logic both play roles. But focus groups, by their nature, are contrived. In other words, you didn’t look at these landing pages because you were searching for them, but because you were asked to. So if you’re not in the market for this kind of product, you’re not going to have the same response as someone who is trying to satisfy some need. The copy that appeals to you might not appeal to the target because you’re not looking for the “trigger” words, or as Jared Spool describes it, a “scent”.
In any case, I still think this is an excellent site and the discussions that result make for great reading.
I think the 2 body’s really helped, but also the light background. The other version is to dark and looks sober. I think the light background, the human bodys and the rest like version B wil be even better than version A.
I got lucky and picked A, but I’m shocked at the amount of uplift obtained from A vs. B.
Also, when trying to pick the winner, it’d be really useful to know some demographic and psychographic info about the target customer. Picking a winner in the absence of such information is a bit like flipping a coin.
What this and earlier tests show is that results are simply not predictable. The results consistently surprise us – which is testament to the need for testing.
In this test, I’d be curious to find out what the next step looked like. They didn’t isolate the variables so there is no way to know which variable most affected the results.
I assume they will go with the winner and test another version – and hopefully, we’ll be able to vote on that as well.
It would be interesting to analyze the response to the two alternatives in different countries, though I guess in this case they’re not aiming for global sales.
Great topic, even better discussion, really.