The event is designed to get senior marketers together at topic-specific roundtables to share effective strategies for online marketing. My colleague from Omniture Digital, Michael Krypel, will have a seat at the “Ecommerce and Conversion Optimization” Roundtable, which will be hosted by Bryan Eisenberg.

I’ll be on-site with clients during the summit, so unfortunately I can’t attend. But if did I have a seat at the “Ecommerce and Conversion Optimization” Roundtable, here are a few of the questions I’d want to ask my peers:

How are you using display ad retargeting to increase onsite conversion?

The display ad market is garnering more attention after several years of declining interest. This is due in large part to advances in ad retargeting, which can customize display ads based on on-site behavior (e.g., search terms, cart abandonment, etc.). I’d find out who at the table is using this strategy effectively and then listen to them carefully about their success story.

How are you customizing the on-site experience for your customers?

After years of fits and starts, marketers finally have great tools available (like Omniture Test&Target) to easily change site content on referring search keyword, clicks from email or display ads, and past site behavior. I’ve seen many of my own clients use this strategy effectively, but I’m always looking for new ideas I haven’t tried yet.

How are you using social media to drive conversions?

Facebook and Twitter buttons are ubiquitous on e-commerce sites these days, but I want to hear how other marketers are using these social networking sites to generate real, measurable business on their site.

What’s your mobile strategy?

I know, I know… we’ve all been asking this question for years, but now with the iPhone mobile has finally come into its own. In fact, I’d go so far to say that if you don’t have a mobile strategy, then you really don’t have a strategy at all. I would want to hear if anyone at the table disagrees with me, and more importantly, what they are doing about it.

Which vendors and partners are creating value for you on your site?

Of course I pride myself on the fact that Omniture provides tons of values for our clients, but I know we’re not the only ones doing so. With all the choices that marketers have today, I’d want to find out who else they are using to drive measurable value. That way I can study what they’re doing as well as spread the word to my clients.

First some background: For each test, the goal was an increase in the users who completed the Request for Information form. Elements we tested in each case were:

• Page design (Simple vs. stylized page design)
• Hero image at the top of the page (Lifestyle image vs. no image)
• Call to action (Button color & copy)
• Benefits messaging (Reinforcing key value propositions)

The results for the two tests could not have been more different. For one university, the page with the stylized page design and lifestyle hero image won handily; for the other university, the simple page design with no hero image won the day. In addition, benefits messaging helped for one university, while it actually had a negative impact for the other university.

Why the great difference? Did this imply that audiences simply respond randomly to different types of content? At times, it can certainly seem that way.

But once we dug into the data, the story became clearer, especially when we examined the sources of referring traffic.

For the page where the stylized design & the lifestyle hero image won, most of the traffic came directly from search engines. For the page where a simple design and no hero image won, most of the traffic came from other pages on the university’s own web site. Are you starting to see why audiences may have responded differently? Stop and think about it for a second.

For traffic that comes directly from search engines, the visual impact of a page is a key success factor. These types of users are “pogo sticking” from result to result, giving each landing page about three seconds of their time before they either commit or move on. Snap judgments based on the way a page looks can be critical. A compelling page design and a comforting image can make an enormous impact.

For traffic that comes from other pages on the same site, the visual impact of a page is often less important. Users have likely already qualified themselves and are looking to convert. Too many visuals (and even benefits messaging) can actually create a distraction for these types of users. So in this case, simple is better.

At the end of the day, we got lift for both clients, so it all worked out. But it was a good reminder of how context, not just content, makes a big difference in how users will respond.

The desire of our clients to run these tests probably has a lot to do with the state of the economy. It’s no secret that a Flash homepage is much more expensive to maintain and to make changes to. It’s also makes it more cumbersome to make quick updates to the page, or to test new concepts. Don’t get me wrong - no one loves a useful Flash homepage more than I do. But most companies simply don’t have the in-house skills to keep a Flash page updated.

For each of our clients, the tests were very simple. Point 50% of users to the default, Flash version of the homepage, and point the other 50% of users to a static version of the homepage. In both cases, the static version retained much of the functionality of the Flash version; however, the static versions often got users to content faster. For example, on an insurance company’s website, the Flash version played a video when a user clicked on a type of coverage, while the static version took people directly to the coverage page.

In both tests, the business users behind the tests were rooting for the static versions to win. They wanted the ability to update their pages more easily, without having to go through a lengthy production process. Essentially, the original decision to use Flash on their site was taken without a clear business need.

And the results?

For the major insurance company that we worked with, we were able to declare the “static” version as the clear winner. There was no negative impact on leads generated for new policies when serving the static version. More impressively, pageviews to internal site pages increased by more than 40%. This led us to start planning a new test to optimize lead generation from those internal pages.

For the office products supply company, the static version also performed better than the Flash version on all key metrics, although by a smaller margin. However, this test was definitely a win for the client. By moving to a static page, our client now has much more freedom to quickly update the homepage with new content and offers, sparing precious internal resources.

Remember that a static page by no means implies a boring page, or a page without a lot of great features. In fact, the static versions for our clients often maintain much of the most important functionality of the page.

So, when does Flash make sense for your site? First of all, look at your site from your users’ perspective. Is the Flash serving a real purpose for your users, by adding meaningful functionality? If so, Flash will likely outperform a static version of your homepage. If, however, you’re using Flash for eye candy, or because you’ve been told that everyone is doing it, then a test might be in order. If you can give yourself more control and flexibility without sacrificing performance against key metrics, why not try it?

At Omniture Digital, we start every single engagement with an on-site workshop. This gives us a unique opportunity to go inside an organization and get a sense of its DNA. After this day-long session, I’m able to identify which organizations are set up to run with optimization, and which ones will need some help getting there. Here are three things that I look for.

Openness to new ideas

Successful optimization organizations are neither too complacent (e.g., why bother trying that?) nor too rigid (e.g., we refuse to try that). New ideas are given an open venue to stand or fall on their merits. When there is a good idea, a successful company plots a course to make it happen. Less successful companies block off these ideas by immediately identifying obstacles. Count how many times each day at your company an idea is immediately shot down due to technical limitations or other roadblocks (for instance, a stakeholder’s defensiveness). Being open to new ideas and finding a realistic way to achieve them is a great predictor of success with testing.

Clear Business Goals

It’s true that ever test needs a success metric, but even more important are company-wide business goals. Otherwise, optimization efforts are often aimed at cross purposes. What are the top five business goals at your company? If you don’t know, it’s time to find out.

A sponsor near the top

Effective optimization organizations often exhibit a strong grass roots component, but at the end of day they do best under the guidance of an executive sponsor. That way, when inevitable challenges arise, there is someone that can help keep testing a priority. Testing is, by its nature, always important but rarely urgent. This means that it often takes a kick in the pants to make it happen. Accordingly, I always look for a CMO or other executive who is sponsoring the program.

An optimization champion

The single most important factor in predicting success: a champion, or owner, of the optimization program. This champion must be a respected member of the organization. (I remember one champion who would schedule countless meetings for which no one would show up. Ouch!) This champion must know, respect and appreciate the other people in his or her organization, and know how to motivate them. You see, testing is all about site optimization, but who gets stuff live on the site? That’s right: people. So having a champion to work with, motivate, trade with those people is a key to success.

Which brings us to you. If you’re reading this post, you’re probably an optimization sponsor, a champion, or aspire to be one or the other. If so, I highly recommend that you use these concepts above as a checklist to evaluate your company’s readiness to dive into optimization. If any of the ingredients are lacking, start working to getting the right people and strategies aligned.

After all, the single piece of advice I give most often to my clients is this: Do something. Start simple. Start today.

Tony graduated with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering in 1993. He spent six years at a small business manufacturing company doing engineering and network admin work. He made the jump to a full time Internet junkie in March 2001 when he joined Dave Ramsey, noted author, radio talk show host and entrepreneur.

JB: Tony, tell me about DaveRamsey.com. I know you’ve experienced phenomenal growth recently.

TB: The timing of us talking is really interesting considering all the recent economic issues. Dave actually started the company back in 1992. As best I can tell, leadership took the company online around 1996-1998. Back then, the site was basically an online store and a couple of pages of brochureware. It’s amusing to look at the design from back then and see how it has progressed.

In late 2000, the company took the plunge and hired our first full-time web employee (we call them team members). In 2001, it was apparent we needed to step it up a bit more and 4 more joined the web effort giving us 5. I was in that group of hires. That’s a pretty good ratio for a small business of 33 employees. From there, our web efforts have grown into a team of 43 including programmers, marketers and creatives. Over the last 3.5 years, we’ve added an average of 10 people per year to the team.

I believe the thing that makes us somewhat unique is that we’ve got a well diversified revenue stream through our website. That’s both a blessing and a curse. It creates a lot of work and planning to stay on top of things, but it allows us to generate significant revenue for the number of visitors we have. We do B2B, B2C, lead generation, advertising, a subscription website, and last year we developed our own online learning platform to deliver our offline Financial Peace University Class. Currently, we’re in phase II with the FPU Online class taking it to businesses/corporations as an HR benefit. After that, we’ll develop it for military financial training. There’s always a lot to do, and I don’t see it slowing down anytime soon.

JB: What’s your role at the company?

I started with Dave Ramsey in 2001 after spending 6.5 years as an manufacturing engineer/network admin/web freelancer. In 2002, I took over the web efforts. Currently my title is VP, Internet Business and Technology. I believe we’re setup a little differently than most companies since I actually get to oversee web development, creative and marketing. I think the best way to explain it is that I view our team as web consultants. If one of the business units goes to lunch and comes back with an idea on a napkin, they send it to us and we flesh it out and they consult with them on whether or not we should do it. If it makes the cut, then we do it.

JB: Like most small companies, I imagine your first web efforts were focused on “getting it done.” When did you first make the conceptual shift to using data to drive your decisions? Was there a moment that made you shift your thinking?

TB: For me the mental shift came a lot earlier than it did for the company. I was blessed to be hired by a web visionary who still works with me, and he conceptually was pushing data use early on. However, it was a “before its time idea” for the company/executives, and it really didn’t get the focus it deserved.

Things developed rapidly in our business, and with incredible growth, it’s easy to miss opportunities like using data to drive business decisions. While we were “loosely” using Webtrends in 2000, switched to Urchin in 2001, then Google Analytics in 2005-ish, we weren’t “leveraging” the data. I knew we would have to make some changes to really make our plans for a new website successful, and I knew we were letting visitors and revenue slip through the cracks. We researched the next step and landed on Omniture. Planning for the new website was the catalyst. I wanted to make sure we had the best tools to make sure the job was done right.

JB: Once you knew you wanted to get and use more data, how did you go about convincing the rest of the organization to go along with you?

TB: Great question. I had to fight hard to get approval. Going from a free Google Analytics package to Omniture can create a little sticker shock for executives.

We did a lot of research. Originally I had singled out a product called ClickTracks, but we were growing so fast, I wasn’t sure it would be a long term solution. We did our homework, gave the execs options, and haggled over SAAS (software as a service) not being something our company does. I laid out a thorough plan of where we were missing opportunity, and I showed how the losses would only get bigger as our visitors increased. In the end, it came down to 2 things. 1) showing them a 800% ROI on the software + employee, 2) I had enough credibility and trust with leadership to make it happen.

We rolled it out in August 2007. We just finished our 1st year, and we ended up around 579% ROI.

JB: Did you invest in human capital to drive your analytics deployment? How did you make the case for this to senior management?

TB: Yes. From experience, I had seen how we used Google Analytics. Everyone was always so busy that no one really had time to use the tool effectively to drive results. I knew that to really get the most out of analytics we would need to dedicate a full time person to leveraging the technology. In my pitch I required that we also invest in someone that would spend their day combing our site looking for opportunities. It’s paid off.

To get executive leadership on board I really drove home a couple of different areas that were very evident and then made the case that there were dozens of opportunities hidden in our site that would produce results monthly.

JB: Once you began using SiteCatalyst, was it a natural progression to start running live tests & targeting content? Was this a harder sell internally?

TB: I really wanted to climb one mountain at a time, but you have to take an opportunity when you have it. My original plan was to work with SiteCatalyst for a year then step up to Discover 2.0. Due to the nature of one business model, the leader of our live events department approached me in spring ‘08 about technology that would geo target our visitors. An opportunity presented itself, and I ran with it. However, it wasn’t easy to get approval.

We spent months prepping the argument for Test & Target to get 3 executives to buy in. Omniture staff worked with us by pulling our SiteCatalyst data into Discover 2.0. From that we discovered that about 10% of our visitors from specific high profile markets were making it to the right pages. We made the case that if we could just get that number up by 5-10% we would meet our ROI goals of 400% on our spend for the tool. I said we could hit that goal in 90 days, and we did.

JB: Many of my clients ask me where they should start testing. How did you pick your first area of focus?

TB: We had a lot of places we could have started, but several jumped out as better quick ROI spots. Since our executive team put a 90 day 400% ROI requirement on us or they’d pull the plug, we focused on quick ROI over long-term, sizeable ROI. We also built the case for TNT based on geo-targeting, so we had to validate the results with geo as well. This limited us to 1 primary product and a couple of secondary ideas that could leverage geo-targeting.

JB: Tell me about how you’ve used geo-targeting on your site.

TB: Intially, we focused on using geo-targeting for our Live Events group. Dave Ramsey presents about 14 financial events per year and about 8 business events per year. We have around 100,000+ people attend the events each year all over the country. Web accounts for 60% of the tickets sales and virtually all of the business leads for the high end events. For the Total Money Makeover LIVE financial events (primary audience), marketing consists mainly of local billboards and ads delivered by the radio show in the local market. What we found was that only 10% of the people from that market that visited our website ever made it to the Live Events pages. Our assumptions were that they didn’t know about the event.

We used geo-targeting to identify the visitor then present a banner on our homepage relative to their market. That is, an Atlanta visitor would see an Atlanta banner on our homepage.

Our next step was to improve the experience once we knew the visitor was interested in the event. We used Test & Target to modify the following pages and checkout process to follow the Atlanta theme and the particular creative that the visitor responded to. We saw significantly uplift from these changes.

After all of that was in place and working, we went back to markets like California where we knew we had visitors, but didn’t have a Live Event in the area. We used geo-targeting to do what I like to call “geo-exclusion” marketing. We removed Live Events banners from those markets and replaced them with other product offers that we could ship to the customer or they could use online.

Between the two geo-targeting initiatives, we were able to meeting our 90 day 400% ROI goal. Now we’re just turning up the notch as we have time.

Is it true that “ugly” pages always win?
Hardly. This is a misconception caused when an ugly page beats a high-concept design. Remember, ugly beats confusing any day.

Is simple always better?
My experience has shown that all things being equal, simple usually wins. Simple doesn’t mean Spartan; it just means a page that’s focused on the task at hand.
Anything on the page that contributes to that primary goal can fit into a framework of simplicity.

Should I put my registration process all on one page?
Surprisingly, testing shows that it’s often more effective to split a registration flow over more than one page. This makes each page short and sweet, and once a user starts the process they’re more likely to finish.

What’s the most common mistake you see on landing pages?
No clear call-to action, or competing calls-to-action. I find this usually happens because companies stop looking at their pages with a fresh eye. Make sure you show your users what to do.

What are the most important user segments to keep in mind when testing?
Good segments are big enough to matter, and also contain key information about the users. Here are the two that I find most actionable:

Referral source: With each of these sources, you know something about the user, such as a search keyword or the message they saw before arriving on your site. Use this info to target a reinforcing message.

·    Paid search
·    Organic search
·    Display ad
·    Email
·    Affiliate

Visit History: First time visitors may need an introduction to your services. For repeat visitors, you can target content based on their previous behavior.

·    First time visitor
·    Repeat visitor

What’s the best color for buttons?
Believe it or not, this is the question I get most often!  Based on all our tests, red or orange buttons usually perform the best. On B2B sites, text links often perform better than buttons.

Where’s the best place to start testing?
The optimal place to start meets three criteria:
1) The page gets plenty of traffic
2) The page has a measurable success metric
3) The page is underperforming on that metric

It’s tempting to test on a page that meets only two of these three criteria. Resist the temptation – otherwise you’ll be testing for testing’s sake.

With all of these answers, there’s one common thread: At the end of the day, you won’t know until you test. Whenever I get complacent or feel like I know it all, I run a test that turns everything upside down.

I wouldn’t have it any other way… that’s what keeps my job so much fun.

Can you think of any I’ve missed?

Fast forward to today.  Unfortunately, much of today’s “Web 2.0” content is not so different from Buick’s experiment from 20 years ago.  How many times have you found yourself on a Web site that’s peppered with slick animation, video and sound, only to be left scratching your head and wondering where to click?

Web 2.0 content is the among most expensive to produce, so it’s ironic that many companies make this content front and center without measuring (let alone optimizing) its performance.

UPDATE: (There are all kinds of Web 2.0 content. I’m focusing here on rich content that is produced in-house. But regardless of where your Web 2.0 content comes from, it’s worth measuring its performance.)

I propose this simple guideline: Web 2.0 content should always be a means to an end, not an end in itself.  What’s the difference?  Here’s an example: Let’s say a Google user types in the query “Finding Nemo review” and they land on your site.  Are they really expecting a page with a video player front and center that shows the movie’s trailer?  Of course not: They are obviously looking for links to movie reviews they can trust.  If a video player is part of the equation, it would only work if it prominently displays a movie review. See the difference?

So before you deployWeb 2.0 content, ask yourself a simple question: “Is this content that my users would want to consume, and is this the way they would want to consume it?”  To answer that question, you need to know not only what the page is designed to do, but also how your users are getting there.

Once you’ve decided to move forward, build in tools to track usage.

What’s that?  You’re not measuring the performance of Web 2.0 content because it’s too hard to track?  Nonsense!  Today’s tools allow you to measure the performance of Flash, video and AJAX content with great precision, as well as to test alternatives.

Think of it this way: If it’s not worth measuring, is it really worth building?

And since you’re measuring, why not target while you’re at it?  Targeting allows you to use one page for multiple purposes.  A query like “Finding Nemo review” would bring text reviews to the top of the page, whereas “Finding Nemo trailer” would make a video player front and center.

Once again, it all comes back to relevance.  It sounds too simple to be true, but that’s the real deal.  The best way to predict relevance is common sense.  The best way to measure relevance is to track performance.  The best way to improve relevance is to test, optimize and target.  So you see, even testing is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

I’ll start the series with the A/B test, one of the most fundamental tools in your arsenal. With multivariate tests getting the lion’s share of attention in the press, the effectiveness of an A/B test is often overlooked. That’s too bad, since an A/B test is often the baseway to start testing.

First, let’s define some terms. For our purposes, I’ll define an A/B test as a live test in which you measure the performance of two or more pages against each other. Examples would be testing two versions of your site’s homepage, or testing three versions of a particular landing page.

My OTTO Digital clients are often surprised when I suggest starting with an A/B test. But once I explain my reasoning, they quickly sign up with the plan. Here is why I recommend starting with an A/B test:

An A/B test encourages you to test radical alternatives

Unlike multivariate tests, which are designed to rigorously test specific elements on a page, an A/B test encourages you to try totally new page designs. You should take advantage of this fact and test out ideas that differ significantly from your control. At OTTO Digital we often tell clients that if you tack your tested alternatives up on a wall, you should be able to tell them apart from across the room.

An A/B test can gives you fast results

With an A/B test, you divide traffic into just a few buckets. If you’ve created recipes with dramatic differences, you’re likely to see a recipe or two emerge as a winner more quickly than you would with a more complex multivariate test. For getting results fast, nothing beats an A/B test.

A/B tests are simple to design and interpret

This is an important factor to consider, especially if site optimization is a new discipline at your company. Few things set back a nascent testing effort more than an exciting test that is later revealed to be flawed in some way. An A/B test provides a straightforward setup, with straightforward results.

An A/B test helps you focus your future MVT efforts

Once you run an A/B test and know which recipe is performing the best, you can further optimize that winner with a round of rigorous MVT testing. You’ll now be testing off an improved baseline. A/B testing is unmatched in its ability to reveal a winning concept and guide your future efforts.

So there you have it. Don’t hesitate to run the humble but effective A/B test. It’s often the best first step on your road to site optimization.

But where should you start?  There’s no substitute for actually running tests on your pages, but if you’re starting from scratch, it makes sense to make sure you’ve checked off on these five landing page fundamentals.

Fundamental 1: Reinforce the search term

By definition, users “land” on a landing page because they’ve typed in a specific search term and clicked on a search result. So it might surprise you how rarely that landing pages actually reinforce this key piece of info that the user has provided.

For instance, let’s say a user types in the search term “online stock trading.”  I’d wager that it’s pretty clear what the user is looking for!   So, why would you send them to a page that’s labeled “Explore our Suite of Online Financial Services”?  Way too general and complicated for the user to decipher!

Make sure your landing page speaks directly to the search term.  It’s worth it.

Fundamental 2: Present a clear call to action

Once users arrive on your landing page, they are looking to complete an action.  Don’t make it hard for them! Give them a clear path to complete the task they came to accomplish.

Take a look at your own landing page with a fresh set of eyes.  Is the key call to action clearly visible on your page?   If not, start removing the things that are getting in the way.   Which leads me to the next fundamental…

Fundamental 3: Less is more

The biggest mistake most sites make is in putting too much information on their landing page.  Remember, searchers are task oriented.   They are looking for an efficient, easy and economic way to meet a particular need.  Make sure every word and image on your landingpage serves this goal.

Fundamental 4: Keep options to a minimum

All right, your user has typed in “online stock trading.” They’ve arrived at your page, judged it relevant, found a clear call to action and they’re ready to move forward.  But wait – now they have to choose between three different trading plans.   Suddenly this just got very complicated.

Except in cases where options can be clearly stated in an easy-to-read grid (like cell phone plans or tax software), it’s best not to confront the user with too many options on your landing page.   Keep it simple. After all, no one wants to make the wrong choice.

Fundamental 5: You have three seconds; make them count

That’s right, you have about three seconds for your users to decide whether to invest their time with you or to hit their browser’s “Back” button.  Think about your own experience searching and you’ll realize how little time you give the landing pages that you come across. Look at your site’s landing page and count to three.

How does your page stack up?

Like I said before, nothing can replace a program of ongoing testing, targeting and optimization.  But these landing page fundamentals are a great place to start.

]]> http://blogs.omniture.com/2008/05/13/landing-page-fundamentals/feed/ http://blogs.omniture.com/2008/05/13/landing-page-fundamentals/