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:


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?

Also, regarding Peter's comments on Baskin Robbins etc. - I don't get the logic. They, and I believe Macdonalds, have interiors that are just about comfortable to sit down and eat your food, but then they want you to move on ASAP.

Surely you don't want to move people off your website ASAP? I thought the whole ideas was to create "stickiness" so that people hung around and got to know you? In which case, I fail to see how this logic helps when trying to make sales online.

Hi Jane

Nice thoughts. I fully agree with your point about the need for the site to build trust and credibility. It has to look professional to sell even under $50 items, leave alone services worth $240 minimum and going upto $480 in many cases.

There is a small catch. We are talking about bald sites without the traditional banner-on-top with navigation buttons, stock photos and like. Do you think it is necessary to have this or even a 'bald' site can build similar credibility with the use of -

- complete address and contact information that is easy to locate

- a photo of the owner or the service provider so that the visitor can identify with the service provider and relate to him

- a signature at the bottom to make it look official - the seal of approval

- complete disclosure of all issues and terms for greater transparency and better trust

- no-nonsense guarantee for risk-reversal

- testimonials - what others are saying, am I the guinea-pig?

- case-studies to see how someone's problem was solved. This improves the confidence level as in "Oh, this is how they solved X company's problems. I am sure they can help me too!"

Hi Arun,

I might describe the difference best by using an analogy.

Let's say you want to spend $600 on a suit. There are three shops next to each other in the shopping mall. All are selling suits of similar quality and price (although you don't know that yet because you're just walking passed).

One shop is really scruffy looking - it's basic. They haven't spent any money on signwriting, and the interior looks a bit bare. However, when you step inside, you find that they have guarantees on their suits and the owner is there who makes the guarantees himself. The next shop is somewhat more elegant - the exterior invites you in, and once in you feel relaxed. The sales staff offer you various options at various prices. You are made to feel welcome. The third store has all of the attributes of the first two. All stores are selling suits of similar quality and at similar prices.

Which one do you buy from?

My opinion is that if your strorefront doesn't look inviting (aka the above the fold part of your website), then no amount of guarantees, signatures, testimonials or whatever will make any difference because people won't come in. I don't go into grotty shops unless I want something cheap for my flat like a dustbin or some plastic storage boxes.

Or they will come in, but they'll be looking for a bargain. If you want to charge big, then you have to look expensive.

In my opinion, a nice, clean, original webdesign is 10 times better than these cookie-cutter looking sales pages - yawn and yak. As soon as I see one, I know I'm going to be sold to and that there won't be any useful content on the site. I can't be the only person in the universe who has seen enough to have grown wise to them.

I also think the whole signature thing is a totally irrelevant. To my mind it proves nothing, except that you are copying the cookie-cutter format. Sorry to be blunt, but that's how I feel about it. And it can't be authentic anyway, because you'd have to be silly to put your real signature on a webpage in case people used it for forgery.

Bottom line for me is that I'm far more likely to buy from a site that creates credibility in my mind, before it tries to sell me something. For me, this involves a reasonable level of webdesign, and not a copy-cat, cookie-cutter sales page.

However, if this works for you, then who am I to say that it doesn't? I personally wouldn't recommend anyone to adopt that style, but then I'm working in a UK market of highly sceptical people. These types of people don't buy into all that kind of stuff on the whole - it brings up the barriers too quickly. And I personally hate it.

Hi Jane

I appreciate your detailed reply. Good ideas

While I totally agree with you about having an impressive looking and professional site, you might like to appreciate that a direct response site with a certain structure tends to convert much better than a conventional site with sparse information and the onus of navigating totally on the visitor. It has been proven by several marketing experts in different tests.

Even the departmental stores are now trying to develop ways to guide the visitors to specific locations or on specific routes through the stores.

You have only commented on the signature part. Shall I assume that you agree with me on the other aspects or just chose the signature as a representative point for discussion?

While on signatures, well, at least I do not put my bank signature online. However it definitely sends a positive signal to your sub-conscious mind that I am willing to stand-by my offer. Even Michel has one on his home page And he is a testing fanatic!

It has also been proven that if you give too many options to a person, he gets confused and leaves. A direct response site presents a focussed offer with all relevant information available right there. It has minimum distractions and assuming that the prospect needs the product or the service (that is why he is there), he is convinced to say YES NOW. On the Internet, relationships do develop (I come back to check up this forum regularly) but the attention span is much lower.

Ok, let us analyze your analogy. If the coat shop were in a distant place you are visiting, should it try to sell you a coat by giving all the relevant information and an exclusive offer or develop a relationship with you by educating you about coat making? If I deliver a nice-looking and well-fitting coat to you, will you not come back to my shop the next time you are there? May be the shop can keep in touch with you and sell you many other things by mail, all things that you (who wears a coat) may require!

Arun,

You say:
This forum seems to regularly get into this either/or, this way or that way kind of mindset. But I don't remember saying that the copy or navigation should be any different than the way you have them now. And I totally agree that the visitor must be led by the hand to the desired action.

My mission, if you will, is to blend both approaches. Good design AND good copy! That's why in my analogy, I presented the third store that does both - it looks good, and gives you all the info, guarantees etc.

The best example of this approach that I know of at the moment is:
http://shmyl.com/vfj.

Robert uses simple, clean design and long copy. However, I did not find the copy to be screaming in my face but more of a rational presentation of the benefits of buying his manual. It worked on me - I bought the manual, and I'm delighted with the value that I have received. The information is comprehensive, relevant and speaks to my problems as an independent professional.

A lot of ebooks/manuals out there are overpriced, badly laid out, badly written and do not contain any kind of action plan to help you achieve your stated goal. I keep being suckered in by them, and then feeling that I have not had my money's worth.

And yes, the cheesey sales pages do (did) work on me. But I will never buy again from people where I don't feel I've received a fair value exchange, and I am becoming increasingly wary of such sites, and the lack of professionalism of the people who run them.

Another good example is Corey Rudl's My Email Manager - a package for running ezines and autoresponders. The sales copy is typically long, but fairly convincing. However, I did find the long copy to be a problem when I was trying to make a features comparison with another product. In the end I decided to give the product a try, even though they don't let you test it first. It has some nice features, but let me down on the most basic things. It was really hard to add or edit individual users, they didn't reply to my requests for support (which unusually is only free for the first month), and the emails that I sent did not arrive for 2 days. Not only that, but it was more expensive than other autoresponders. By contrast, the site did have some nice design.

So again - the sales letter worked, but the product did not deliver on the basics and therefore didn't represent a fair exchange of value, and I ended up getting a refund.

So my conclusion is that these kinds of sites are generally run by people who are either very good copywriters, or hire good copywriters, but they do not deliver satisfaction. When you combine this with the cheesey presentation, it all adds up to a lasting negative feeling on my part, and certainly no upsells, or lasting relationship.

Anyway, as I said, if it works for you and you are building lasting relationships, and you've tested one look against another, then you don't need my experience/opinion.

However, I personally would be very nervous to use this approach in my market (other independent professionals and small businesses), and I wouldn't recommend it to any of my clients to use on their clients. That said, most of my clients could use beefing their copy up somewhat, and I do help them do that.

I really wish we could get away from this idea that good copy and good design are mutually exclusive. It might be that people buy IN SPITE of the design, or IN SPITE of the hypey copy! (Un-hyping copy does not necessarily mean short copy by the way).

Jane

Hi Jane

Did I misunderstand you? I thought we are both agreeing that good design plus good and effective sales copy is the way to go. I am sorry to sound otherwise.

Yes, I know that there are an awfully lot of people out there selling useless stuff with great sales copy. Since these people employ long sales letter format (because it works), there is a general tendency to associate long sales copy with cheesy products. Michel covered this in another post related to Nick's blog