Hi,
I just wanted to pick up on some points regarding site-design that came up in the "save my marriage thread".
Arun was concerned that his site looks rather "bald", and Peter replied with some thoughts on his own preferences for visually appealing materials, whilst cautioning us that this can distract our visitors from the sales process.
He says:
Quote:
To this side of me, your site looks "bald".
Now for selling, all that stuff above is for naught. In general and not in reference to your site, I think a little ugly can be disarming. When people feel as though they're superior to the designer/writer, all the better. They drop their guard. "He couldn't possibly talk me into anything".
Sometimes, keeping the environment a little edgy or irritating can be a good thing as far as hastening a decision such as I think was Carlton's point in using the blue seen here: http://www.marketingrebel.com/ .
|
Now again, it may well depend on what you're selling, who you're selling it to and whether you expect to bring them back to your site for other purchases or not.
But I have to disagree with this principle in general. I suppose if you expect someone to buy now, and don't expect them to ever return to your site then it might be a useful philosophy. However, my own experience is that more attractive, professinal looking sites leave a much better impression on me.
If a site doesn't look like it's been professionally designed, then I may have a number of thoughts and feelings, conscious and subconscious that range from "is this a fly-by night operation", "why are they too cheap to get the site done properly", and a feeling of repulsion. I can't really see how this helps sales?
Also, sites with dark backgrounds make me feel as though I've kind of dropped into some kind of abyss - it's hard to describe, but they jar on me. Another fashion as the moment seems to be having some words written on the diagonal as the background - but because so many people are doing it, the feeling I get when I visit these sites is "oh god, not another one".
Bottom line for me is this: I don't buy on my first visit to a site unless the price tag is below $20, because I will consider my options; if a site looks horrible, I'm not inclined to seek it out and go back again; it creates a bad impression on me - even if I decide that the product is a "must-have", I won't be coming back to the site later to buy any other products because I don't like you very much.
In Arun's case, I would imagine that most people would need to optimise on 4 or 5 keywords - so this will cost them between $480 and $600. I would imagine that most people would have a fairly complex evaluation process before shelling out that kind of money to someone they don't know. Surely, then, in this instance, fairly attractive design would be required in order for people to feel assured that this is a reputable company that will be around for a while.
I don't subscribe to over the top design with flash all over the place just for the sake of it. I would call it "competent" design - i.e. the words are the most important thing, but the site still looks good and professionally done.
Thoughts?