bland selling sites
 

Finally back to lurking the sowpub board again, after a few years (dunno if anyone other than Thomas, and possibly Dien Rice, would remember me). I've been looking for posts on CPC methods, and affiliate systems.

I clicked through to two links from these boards:

http://www.businesslyceum.com/DepressionProof.html
and
http://www.midasreports.com/stoprefundscold/

and it got me thinking ... is it detrimental for these pages to be so "bland". The information is without doubt useful, but I have to seriously work to absorb the information. On a wide screen monitor like mine, each line stretches out a long way. There are a lot of design conventions that these pages seem to completely ignore, conventions aimed to improve readability of text, etc. Also, I've been looking at some pages written by Shawn Casey, his first introduction was a sideshow presentation with audio, which definitely helped me to assimilate his information with a lot less pain than reading blocks and blocks of text.

Is it then an advantage, or a disadvantage to have "bland" layouts? On one hand, it's less attractive, and more difficult to get customers, on the other the people that knuckle down and read through the text are definitely looking for the information and haven't just clicked away.

Re: bland selling sites
 

Yes of course I remember you! I hope things are going well! :)

On sales pages with lots of text, to my understanding, many people have tested video or audio on a sales page, and increased response. (That is, video or audio, along with text as well.) I think why that might be the case is that different people prefer different things. Some prefer to read text, others prefer to watch a video or listen to an audio presentation. If you have both, prospects can choose the format they like best!

Having said that, I think a text sales page makes sense for those two products, because they are written products. So, people who will want to buy them I presume will like to read, so will be happy to read the sales message.

As for me personally, I actually prefer reading text to listening to an audio or watching a video. That's because I can "skim" a text, and jump around, or re-read something easily if I didn't get it the first time. It's harder to do all those things with a video or audio (you can't skim at all, and the other things are a little more difficult). I can usually read faster than people can speak, so I find I can get through things quicker if I read. But I know many people prefer audio or video to reading a text (especially if you're tired!).

Well, that's one person's opinion...! :)

- Dien

Re: bland selling sites
 

Yep, I'm very much like this myself, when I'm researching I prefer being able to read information at my own pace, rather than having to go at the pace of the video. In saying that, sometimes I like to grab a hot drink, put my feet up, and lean back with the headphones on, just watching and listening.

With straight text though, trying to read lines that stretch from one side of my screen to the other is a pain. There's some reason that newspaper articles are written in columns, something to do with the eye not having to move too far left and right for each line, and therefore being easier to read.

Re: bland selling sites
 

Ah... I tend to resize my browser! :)

(So it's not so wide...)

Though I know many people like to "surf" online with their browsers on "full screen" size...

I think the answer to that is probably to limit the width of the text on the website. I haven't really done that with my sites - though I probably should!

Here's an example of a newspaper article which is at fixed-width. No matter what size you make your browser, the width of the text stays the same...

(It's an article about how eating beets can help lower blood pressure...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/ma...7/hbeet107.xml

Ankesh Kothari's "Non-Toxin" website, Gordon Jay Alexander's blog, Michael Ross's website have the same feature...

http://www.nontoxin.com/are-tomatoes...odds/?u=sowpub

http://www.incomeandhappiness.com/bl...-are-we-doing/

http://www.michaelrossonline.com

:)

- Dien

Re: bland selling sites
 

Yep, this is definately what I've done with every website I've created in the past. Keep it easy to read. There used to be a great site I read ages ago that displayed all it's articles in a format that made you feel like you were reading a magazine. Information in 2-3 columns, easy reading, beautifully presented. Couldn't find it again at short notice, but I did come up with this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...xelated-Nipple

ok, a bit tongue in cheek. Still if you can focus on just the area of the article (ignore the heading and the adverts on the right), it displays it's text information in a very attractive fashion (pun fully intended) has graphics to make it visually appealing, and has the main "selling point text" repeated in a large block, different colored text, and even in that the sales lines are extra emphasized.

Now I've written that, I'm wishing I chose a different example, so my meaning isn't lost :P Hope what I wrote makes sense :P

Re: bland selling sites
 

A must read...

From a well known Expert on the subject...

Jakob Nielsen...
http://www.useit.com/jakob/
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/

Of course, ask a 1,000 other Experts and you'll get a 1,000 different opinions... :)

Phil

Re: bland selling sites
 

Thanks for that page, was an interesting read.

It, and most of it's links, actually make the point I've been fumbling towards: visually attractive pages.

So many of these product sales pages I've been reading, and these pages regarding "usability" of web sites......... are simply unattractive. They're not pleasant to look at. This is not to that they're not functional, they do present their information in a functionally sufficient manner. Just not an appealing one.

So, to rephrase my question in my original post.... Does it cause sales to suffer if the website selling products is visually unappealing? If so, why are so many of these sites selling these products not putting in the work to make them more aesthetically appealing? Far more than just the layout of text, but page coloring, images, layout, etc.

Ugly vs. slick looking websites - which are better?
 

I don't think a web site has to be "attractive" in order to sell...

I think it depends on what the sales message is...

For example, if the website is about a couple selling their home made jam online, then a "home made" website might actually be the most appealing. Their "home made" website "reinforces" the sales message - which is that the jam is "home made"...

If they have a very snazzy, corporate looking website to sell their "home made" jam, it could actually detract from the message... It makes it LESS believable that the jam is really "home made" - and might make it look more like a slick "scam" trying to pawn off factory-made jam as "home made"...

On the other hand, if it's a bank which is selling their services, you don't want a "home made" look! That would probably reduce confidence... With a bank, people want to know that there is a big institution behind it. They don't want to deposit their hard-earned money to a business they think is on the edge of going bust! So, for a bank, a "home made" website look could hurt more than help...

Of course, the answer is testing. I believe the answer will differ depending on your product and how you're "positioning" it in the market...

Another point is that many "ugly" websites are simple and focused. For example, some of the websites you linked to earlier have one single focus - to get the sale. Some other "slicker" websites have links taking you in all kinds of directions - which can distract from getting the potential customer from clicking on the "order" button...

Here's some other relevant discussion on this topic...

The Surprising Truth About Ugly Websites
http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2006/mar/27prt.html

The hidden truth: Ugly websites do sell
http://performancing.com/content/the...bsites-do-sell

An ugly website which apparently makes a lotta moolah
http://www.plentyoffish.com

Blog by plentyoffish founder
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com

Interesting, no? :)

Cheers, Dien

Plenty of Fish got his business rolling by asking for help in a forum...
 

Some might be interested to know...

Markus Frind actually got his business rolling by posting in a forum... :)

Just goes to show you, it's all about Working your idea... ;)

First post here asking for help...

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forum...l=plentyoffish

http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/20...ted-an-empire/
http://www.sowpub.com/forum/showthre...plenty+of+fish

Phil

Re: Ugly vs. slick looking websites - which are better?
 

Ta for those, Dien

The most valuable message that jumped out from those pages was "Make the potential customer comfortable" . Throw them off with too much stuff splashed around the page, distracting their eyes from your message, and you've lost them

If you look back on google, when it first started, it provided what people wanted, a clean page with only the search box, and nothing else. At the time, astalavista, yahoo, etc had craploads of adverts, news.... their search pages were chaos, as they were trying to monotise their search engine traffic at the time. And look at google now :)

Basicly, just follow the KISS principle: keep it simple, stupid. Function over form.

In saying that, I firmly believe that a well designed, clean, attractive page *will* sell better than a whole bunch of text thrown on the screen in huge blocks. Obviously there are many sites that are selling very well using poor design, but how much better could they do with a basic makeover?

I *hate* having to "work" to get the information I'm after. I'll persist reading through masses of text, but my mood hits the floor pretty quickly. How many sales have been lost because people got tired of trying to absorb the information on a web page?

Back to the comfortable idea. Many people are somewhat afraid of the net. There is a need to build up a certain "trust" with these people. One thing almost everyone is familiar with is TV. At the moment, video presentations on these websites seems to be vastly underutilized, and would seem to be the simplest way to reach out to a non-tech savvy audience.

Your opinion: would this be too scary?
 

just came across this site, explaining a concept

http://www.cquestrate.com/

To me, it looks like a clean layout, nothing too "scary" for people fairly new to the net. But that's my perspective... I've grown up with things since the old 14.4k modem days.

What do you think of this kind of layout. Would it still be too much, would it scare off potential clients/customers?

Yes, That site is scary.
 

DB,

Thanks for asking.

Any site that hints at a gas which makes up maybe 0.06% of the atmosphere can change a planet's climate, while ignoring the biggest heat giving thing in the observable sky (the Sun) and the massive heat absorber (water) on the same planet, is scary

And you know what's extra scary... when the climate cycles back - as it has done for eons - then all the tax imposing politicians and their pseudo-science greenies, will claim its because of our efforts to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the air.

But about new people's thoughts on the site... why not ask some? Why so pre-occupied with this question? Bland V semi-bland V flash out the wazoo.

Put up a site as YOU would like to visit.

Michael Ross

Re: bland selling sites
 

Well, the site itself is not scarey BUT the goal, tho' admirable in the sense of trying to accomplish something probably needed, is very scarey.

To balance things let's also remember that we've been blasting and burning off gases for generations with no more thought than a snap of the fingers as far as the long-term effect on our planet. We've also shot oil hundreds of feet into the air and let it fall back to pollute the earth. We've also released fuel and bathroom wastes into the atmosphere from airplanes and never gave a thought to it either.

No, we have not been good stewards of this earth at all. The argument about the cycling of the earth over the millenia doesn't apply these days. Why? Because we are the first known inhabitants who have the capacity to drastically change the face of the earth in such a way as to disrupt the natural ebb and flow of earth's cycles.

Yes, living and breathing these days can be a scarey proposition. Kinda puts your excessive concern about website design into a different light, doesn't it? If you're soooo concerned about it, why not try out several different designs and see what happens. Then, compare, and you'll have your answer.

Sandi Bowman

In the past it was nature but this time it's man? Oh Phullleeeaase...
 

Sandi,

Thanks for trying to uphold the Man Made GW end.

"The argument about the cycling of the earth over the millenia doesn't apply these days. Why? Because we are the first known inhabitants who have the capacity to drastically change the face of the earth in such a way as to disrupt the natural ebb and flow of earth's cycles."

So let me get this straight...

The Warm period we had 130,000 years ago (with warmer weather than current) was natural. The Warm period we had 240,000 years ago (with temps around the same as current) was natural. The warm period we had around 330,000 years ago (with warmer temps than current) was also natural. The warm period we had around 410,000 year ago was natural. But this time, the warm period which only started some 10-20,000 year ago... even though the warming (from bottomed out temps to top) only took around 10-20,000 years in the previous times, just like this time... but this time, it's man's CO2 output that's done it. Not the increased volcanic activity spewing billions of tons of crud into the atmosphere in one single eruption, the Tunguska Event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event of 1908 has nothing to do with crud in the atmosphere. Mt St Hellens was nothing. The Sun's solar flares and magnetic bursts and cycles also have nothing to do with it - even though they did in the past.

Is that? Is that the essence of what you're getting at? That This time - even though it fits perfectly with the rough 100,000 year warming/cooling cycle of the past - this time is man's CO2 output? Which is a Speck of the 0.06% of atmosphere which is CO2 from other sources?

Look. Granted we, as a species, can devastate the land and cause changes in local-ecological ways. Like clogging up rivers and streams with debris from refuse, strip mining, land degradation and so on. Like creating high salt levels in soil by removing all the trees that once kept the salt levels in check.

But we can't heat up a planet by driving SUVs or using electricity any more than an Indian can make it rain by doing a jig.

The only constant thing about the Earth's weather is... it's not constant. It is forever changing. The continents are shifting - which causes changes in water flowing around the planet and the way the air circulates. The Sun is always cycling. Throughout the year we Wobble from axis to axis and get Seasons as a result. Where there are now Himalayan mountains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas their used to be sea bed (and as they are still growing, the change in air flow through and around these mountains alone is Massive and Always changing).

Hundreds of years ago farming was going on in Greenland - must have been warmer then, right? But now, that wouldn't be possible.

Remember the year without Summer?

Thirty years ago the chicken little cry was... Ice Age. Now it's the complete opposite. And both endorsed by scientists of the time with so-called Proof.

So what, from Ice Age to Global Melt Down in 30 years?

Geeze, I remember talking with a Scientist 30 years ago who had data that the yearly build up and break up of the North and South poles was not consistent. One pole was building more and breaking down less than the other. His concern was... the excess ice at one pole more than the other could cause additional wobble in the Earth's yearly wobble and total FUBAR our weather.

The only constant is change. And this planet's weather will cycle whether man is here or not.

Michael Ross

Re: In the past it was nature but this time it's man? Oh Phullleeeaase...
 

Michael,

Disregarding whether this warming up of Earth is man made or natural... can anything be done about it? Whats your thoughts on that?

Is there a solution? Or do we just have to suffer and wait out for the change to become better for us again?

There is no solution because there is no problem...
 

Ankesh,

Thanks for asking about US - humans - being able to Control the Global temperature of the Earth. At least, I assume that's what you're asking.

See. Your question... "Disregarding whether this warming up of Earth is man made or natural."... has an assumption in it. That the weather is currently warming up.

Yes, ice core data would appear to show a slightly warmer (one tenth of one degree) change. But it also shows, many up/down changes can happen while there is an overall trend up or down - while trending down there can be a year or two of warming, for instance. While trending level we can have periods of warming and cooling for instance as well.

"can anything be done about it"

The question should be... SHOULD anything be done about it?

Now, if we take that we are in a 1/10th degree warming period, Should we do anything about it?

I say.... No!

Leave the Earth's weather to do what it does.

Richard Branson wants to Reward some Boffin for finding an economical way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Um... hey Branson... the Ocean's - and therefore the planet's - CO2 pump removes Heaps. Trees do their part too.

Either the man is a complete Goose - or - he knows the truth of it and is just trying to Cash In on the anti-CO2 craze and get himself some free publicity, and a good guy badge.

Anyway. Say we, as a species, did find a way to stop the Sun heating the Earth and thus we Cool us down.

Why do that? Why rush into an ice age?

Cold is Death.

Foods supplies diminish. Millions - billions - will starve to death.

Warmth is life. Plants grow. Foods grows. Life flourishes.

"Is there a solution?"

What Problem do you think we need a solution to?

"Or do we just have to suffer and wait out for the change to become better for us again?"

Better for us? In what way do you want Better? What is so wrong with the weather we have now?

Look. The problem with humans is, we live too short a life. Even if we lived 1,000 years, that is a Dot on the global time scale.

Take T-Rex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops for example. They lived around 65 to 68 millions years ago. And were around for millions of years themselves. At a time, it is commonly thought, to be quite Warm - warmer than today.

Humans have been around for what... 150,000 to 200,000 years in current form. Heck, even Neanderthals were around for longer - more than Double that.

So our time here is a speck. As such, we don't remember - nor do we pass on very well through written or verbal form - past events.

There is no-one around from 130,000 year ago who can tell us what it was like living in an ice age and what they thought as the weather turned warm. Did they try to stop it getting warmer - or did they welcome it? They cannot tell us what it was like to live through a ice age turn warm period and back to ice age.

And so, all we have is limited weather data and our own memories. And based on this, the media would have us all believe, the polar caps will melt and the sea will rise and flood the cities and we'll all die.

All brought about by a gas which makes up 0.06% of the atmosphere, and to which we only contribute a tiny amount compared to other CO2 generating sources.

Having said all this... yes we can make geographical changes which would effect weather to a degree. Such as spending the next few thousand years leveling the Himalayan ranges so the wind flows smoother and placing the excavated earth into the sea to divert the flow of the ocean currents.

But by the time all this happens, the Sun and oceans will have done their jobs and the global climate will be different again. It may be warmer. It's more likely to be cooler - because we are around about Peak at the moment.

So. You want it cooler? Do nothing. Within 5,000 years it'll be so cold you'll wish it were warmer. Unless, of course, we are entering a repeat phase of dinosaur era weather with quite prolonged warm spells - but my money is on the Cooler aspects.

Of course, while we experience an ice age, there will be no humans who remember it being warm. And so when it starts to warm up again, unless people have forgone their chicken little minds and have learned to think Rationally and logically, we will once again predict doom and gloom from Global Warming.

Suffer, you ask?

Ankesh, humans don't suffer (now, no being pedantic here and telling me the plight of some 5 year old in Africa who has no food and who was birthed by an irresponsible parents who knew there was no food, but who, 23 years ago, had received Aid because there was no food then either), we Adapt.

Michael Ross

Re: There is no solution because there is no problem...
 

Thanks Michael.

Because we humans suffered through famines, we came up with methods of irrigation. Yes - we interfered with natural flow of water. And made life better for us (for the most part).

Its my opinion that we humans CAN do a better job than mother nature in many other areas too.

I don't really care what causes all the floods and hurricanes these days (although from what I read - the hotter the atmosphere, the more hurricanes we see). These hurricanes may only be a small blip in the millions of years of Earths history. But they are very inconvenient and causes loss of property and death - while I am alive.

So again I ask - how can we engineer the Earth's atmosphere so that it is ALWAYS favourable for us? Any ideas?

(It may be a pipe dream now, but I do believe that in the near future, we will be able to control Earth's atmosphere better.)

Re: There is no solution because there is no problem...
 

One thought that comes to my mind is Bucky's idea of covering entire cities with mega Geodesic domes. We can use these Geodesic domes to control the temperature of the city. Keep it cool at a good temperature through out the year without using a lot of energy.

http://buckminster.info/Ideas/08-Ico...ntownCover.htm

Another thought that comes to mind is the technology created that makes it rain anywhere anytime by sprinkling a powder in the air.

Using load balancing techniques have been very effective for sky scrapers in earth quake zone areas.

How to prevent against hurricanes and tsunamis?

Get real.....
 

The "Global Warming" thing is a big HOAX!....brought about by some far-left leaning Socialists whose REAL goal is "Control of Human Activity" and...while they're at it...a way to put a few hundred millyun bux in their pockets ala Al Gore ($100 Millyun in his "Carbon Credit" Scheme thus far from GULLIBLE people with more money than brains)

The "movement" makes participants "Feel Good" that they are, "Doing Something".

It's like when shortly after Clinton got in office in '92. "Feel Good" people were having "Bake Sales" to whittle down the National Debt. Wow. One gal sent da Gummit $200 from her sale. That's like "farting in the wind".

Maybe 100 nukes going off at the same time could change the climate, for a short period. BUT...good ol ma nature will have things back to where they were.

Some few years ago I remember things heating up about "pollution" from car exhaust and Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines blows her top and spews 100 millyun times the "pollutants" into the air than a millyun car exhausts can, in one blast.

Yup...it's like the "Feel Goodies" who dress up in black outfits and stand in line in front of our local VA Center...as "Silent Protest" to the "Violence" of the Iraq War.

Yup...go stand in front of the Iran Dictator in yer black outfits. I'm sure he will be influenced enough to stop building his nukes.

In fact....if YOU who are reading this REALLY want to "feel good"...and want to "feel" like you are "doing something"....put an X by Obama's name this fall. See how much his rhetoric and BS will get this country.

I lived thru a Dem Congress with a Dem Pres (Jimmy "good ole boy" Carter) where the economy almost went into the tank and Iran took some of our people hostage daring the twerp to do something.

Then, just before Mr Reagan got in office, they released the hostages because they KNEW....Reagan would not just "Talk".

"YOU" people have been "DUPED"! Wake Up and Get INformed!....or, go live on an island with some goats cause it ain't gonna be too comfy here in da states wid Obama runnin' aroun.

Last month, Chelsea Clinton got off an airplane in Baghdad...went up to one of our soldiers and asked him, "Soldier! What are you afraid of?"

He looked at her...paused and said, "Maam! I'm afraid of OSAMA, OBAMA and Yo MAMA!" (Say that fast)

I've gotta go now. Going to distribute more of my "Just Say NO-BAMA" bumper stickers.

Don Alm...Anti-Environmentalist Wacko

Re: Get real.....
 

boy ...dont you just love this forum and America?

lts see ..is it hotter than in the past ?
is it natural ...ie , would happen with or without mankind?
do people really believe that they can have ANY influence on this , other than local ?

say what you feel , or think ....it is obviously hotter...and according to Michael , whose researche rivals Phil, it is natural...every 400 million years or so ...who knows ....for certain...what happened back then ? who wrote the book back then ?

anyway , just wanted to stop in and see how youse guys were doing....
have a good one...