Here's a question for you..

lets say your sales letter is on 2 separate pages.
(ala http://www.doubleyourdating.com)

and lets say that your click thru rate from one
page to the next is about 50%.

Would the conversion rate of the site go up
beacause there's one less click involved?

I'm about to test this one a website and was
curious to see if anyones tested this, if so what
their results were.


Dave Mizrachi

Usually, you lose pulling power when you spread a process over multiple pages. That's why, in some cases, it even improves response to have the order form on the same page as the sales message.

The answer... as always... is test

Yes. In almost every test I have conducted, moving from multiple pages to a single page has improved conversions.

This is particularly true for B2C sites. The only times that I have not seen improved conversions when testing this is on B2B sites that cater to C-level executives (CEO, CFO etc.)

Happy Testing!
Eric

single page actually destroyed my conversions. I think multiple pages work sometimes, but every page should, by itself, be able to lead to a sale...and have a buy now button on it.

I think there's something really important to note here -- and Jane has made this abundantly clear many times before... that it's not the multiple pages or long copy or whatever that's key. It's the type of copy used to persuade specific types of audiences. In other words, it's the audience. Market targeting. NOT the copy.

If people buy from multiple pages MORE than long copy on a single, long-scrolling web page, then it means that the market to which the copy appeals prefers this approach. (This is what TESTING is all about. Copywriter Paul Myers, a friend of mine, said it best: "Some people say testing is manipulating people, but I say testing is a way to discover what people want -- and to give it to them.")

I also remember Dr. Kilstein stating that the 3 biggest factors that increases/decreases response are:

1. The market.
2. The offer.
3. The copy.

(And yes, "copy" is #3 in that list.)

Bottom line is, when people go into long-winded, often overzealous arguments about long versus short, single versus multiple, tamed versus hyped, they are all right -- and wrong -- at the same time.

It's not the copy. (Well, not at first.)

It's all about the audience. It always was and always will be.

PRECISELY!

That's why I qualified my statement by addressing the audience I tested the format changes against.

Each target market, each demographic, each technographic will respond differently. That is why you have to test EVERYTHING.

You can't use other peoples testing data (or even your own testing data from other sites) and automatically assume that the results will be valid for a different market.

As I mentioned in my post above. Most tests I've done on B2C offerings benefited from a single page format, but for certain B2B offers, a single page reduced response.

And guess what... those results are only valid, for THOSE sites at THAT time.

Your results may be totally different with your audience and your offer. But the ONLY way to know... The ONLY way to answer any question you have about how something will impact response is to test it.

Great post Michel!

Eric

I totally agree with Michel and Eric. That said...

I looked at Dave's site, and he is referring to a forced Namesqueeze approach vs. direct to the sales page (which is different than say a short landing page broken down into links).

Regarding Dave's specific namesqueeze approach and question, I keep coming up against this specific question myself with clients, and we have conducted numerous tests.

It is a complicated issue, and there are pitfalls to be aware of during the testing process when trying to figure out whether using a forced namesqeeze is the best way to go or not.

Here are some thoughts...

1) Isolate the short term Visitor Value in a split - namesqueeze vs. direct to sales page. In most cases, the intial Visitor Value will be stronger with the "Direct to sales page" (only once have I seen a tie).

After all, even with a very good 50% CT to the sales page, you have lost 50% of your visitors before they see the letter. My experience, in almost all cases, has been that the CR% on the sales letter of those who do sign-up through the namesqueeze and CT, is higher than the direct to sales letter group. But this isn't important - look at the overall Visitor Value (to start).

2) Now start to figure out the longer term Visitor Value, because your Namesqueeze follow-ups will start to come into play - do the follow-ups generate enough sales to overtake the "Direct to sales page" approach?

How long do you test?

I highly recommend you look at this thread from Warriors where this same question was brought up, and answered extensively by John Reese and others (some real golden info is shared)...

http://www.warriorforum.com/forum/to...TOPIC_ID=49234

3) Very important consideration: Is this a merchant site who has a lot of affiliate traffic?

If so, be careful with a forced namesqueeze approach, because more often than not, it is a longer rhythm sales process and the initial results may be poor (which can discourage your affiliates - thus reduce your overall traffic flow).

4) Also be aware that forcing a namesqueeze can attract a high % of throw-away, or fake email addresses.

5) I am personally finding that the strongest results are coming from sales letters that have opt-in options "on the sales page", or "hover pops", or "exit-hovers", or a combo of these working with direct sales to get the highest VV - using a valuable free report.

Of course these are generalizations, and so much depends on the traffic quality, how the namesqueeze is written, the sales page, the follow-ups, etc, etc, etc...

Anyway... just some thoughts based on some experience. Do go look at that Warriors thread, it is very helpful in understanding how to evaluate the Namesqueeze process for your own tests.

All the best,

Tim

I have some comments from the point of view of a potential customer.

I don't like name squeeze pages, especially if they don't provide a link to the real information. 2 reasons:

1) Maybe I don't want the report, and don't want the bother of having to unsubscribe

2) Should I ever return to that domain again, I'll have to enter my details a second time to get back to the sales page. I'm probably not unique in that I don't buy the first time I see something. I'm likely to come back to it

There is also something vaguely patronising about this approach. It's almost as if I'm not grown up enough to read the sales page and make up my own mind. However, I'm quite happy if people give me the sales page AND a namesqueeze offer. After all, the internet is about information. So, if I'm searching for information on something, maybe I do actually want all the details that you'd tell me in a sales letter.

My 1.14p's worth.

Jane

Excellent post Tim.

One other consideration I think needs to be factored into the decision process, is the overall value per subscriber.

Whenever I am calculation the ROI of namesqueeze vs. direct sales (with other opt-in devices), I like to determine the average value per subscriber over a 6 or 12 month period.

For example if your namesqueeze page produces a 30 day (or a full run of your main auto-responder series...) visitor value of $2.50 and your direct sale produces a visitor value (over the same time period) of $3.25, it is tempting to stay with the direct sale.

However, if you have solid numbers showing that you make an average of an additional $5.75 per year (or per 6 months) for each name on your opt-in list, you would still be better off long term by staying with the namesqueeze page.

But in order to make that determination, you need to have an systematic, back-end follow up system in place, that you are tracking and measuring.

Of course you want to discount these numbers a bit to make up for the "fake name" factor associated with namesqueeze pages.

I also recommend segmenting namesqueeze generated names from your main opt-in list to get a more accurate idea about the responsiveness of these names.

And as Tim mentioned, if your primary traffic source is affiliate referrals, the most responsive method is usually the direct sale. (But, still test it...)

Traffic source and pre-qualification plays a major role in any testing you do on your site.

Eric

P.S. - Thanks for linking to that Warriors thread. Great info!

great responses.

its interesting because the doubleyourdating site
pulls VERY well and their website i'm certain is
responsible for making a LOT of money.

But I wonder, is their sales process as efficient
and as streamlined as it could be?

Thats the reason for the question.

I wondered why they have their system like that
unless its pulling well, and if its not then would it
pull better if the thank you page was the sales
letter, if it was all on 1 page etc.

I think the more you do this (testing/refining/
tweaking), the better questions you ask.

I do think its a good question because that site
is the GOLIATH of the dating market.


Dave