Does Tacky really outsell classy?

dont compare yourself to apple. You don't have their bankroll. They are not a direct response marketer.

The sites you talk about are direct response marketing in the online world and they are using the formulas of direct response marketing.

Some big name internet marketers are getting classier designs with their blogs, but thats also becasue they outsource the design or can use pre-designed themes. But those blogs usually don't sell anything directly and are more of a trust building / list building / traffic driving vehicle.

I had a "nicely designed site" classy looking...had a lot of links to free info, etc...

People came to the site, read a lot of the info, never made a sale...

I changed the site to a direct selling site...gave away only 1 piece of info and had the typical "tacky" things you talk about - though I like to think, not too tacky...and almost immediately sales started happening.

Hmm, I may be kidding myself that I can do the decent enough web design (or at least know how to apply good looking templates).

Maybe if I use a classy site, with a free giveaway that funnels into list building etc

That might be the way to go.

I am all for one time offer, etc etc, but the layouts just seem so screaming at you to buy. For me as 1 customer, I know I tune out immediately..

Tacky doesn't outsell classy, but it's so much easier.

These tacky sites that look like vomit have been split tested against other sites that look like vomit. Go look at Robert Plank's sales pages, or Jason Fladlien's. They split test all to hell, too, and look how clean and elegant their sales pages are.

There's a difference between them and the other Clickbank folks, though. Robert and Jason are technical people who understand that austerity is even easier than tackiness.

And it converts better, too.

It does work. It depends on who you are marketing to.

Generally these types of sites are 'marketing' to 'marketers' (or wanna-be marketers), and if it is the 'first' time a 'newbie' sees a site like this (and there are a lot), then they tend to be very effective.

If you use it simply as a cut & paste solution without putting any thought into it (i.e., figure by making a tacky site you'll see the same success), then you'd probably find it difficult to see any kind of success. But if you tweak your sales pages over and over, with a consisent stream of traffic & split testing (alternating between the two tests, etc, or multi-variate tests), and then revising the copy, then you can see conversion rates of 5, 10, 15, 25% and higher. (Industry "standard" tends to be 1%)

So yes, they do work, but they do require 'work' as well to figure out what the best 'formula' is.

Likewise, 'classic' (or professional) sites work as well. It is a matter of testing/tracking, and finding what converts best for *your* offer.

Most of those sales pages are selling ebooks or video courses to newbies and affiliate marketers. If you have a solid technical product, go with a nice site. An example is autoblogged.com. They don't use a "tacky" sales page to sell their plugin.

i agree with brock.

Tacky or classy isn't the issue... or the least bit
relevant... to making sales.

Interesting and valuable are what matters.

Tsnyder

Does tacky outsell classy? Think about what sold years ago and what is still for sale today?

Are will still buying the lil black dress or maxi skirts from the 60's?

Are flower power prints happening or do we reach for plain colors?

Would you prefer a trench coat or a raccoon coat?

Is a navy blazer a better job interview option or a well padded boyfriend blazer?

All of these options were popular at one time. Which still sell?

So are you looking for evergreen or flash n' cash?

Quick question: why don't you guys split test this yourself, that way you don't have to worry about what other people do?

Any one of you could have started a split test in a fraction of the time it took you to post...

The trend of this discussion leans to the answer 'split test' 'split test' split test'. I know there are quite a few people that actually believe it is possible to do a valid split test of sites on the net using 'split test' programs....which, of course, many people sell.

Pardon me but I don't buy the 'split test' answer. Unless the tester does some very heavy, expensive, boring, tedious work, it's almost impossible to do a real split test that has serious meaning. Anyone can do a 'split test' and get results, but whether these 'results' have any meaning is open to question. Most 'split tests' are garbage on stilts.

But what do I know? I've only taught research techniques at the undergrad and graduate level.

I dont think you are considering the place the page is on a sales funnel or the type of sales funnel. Take for instance the autoblogged.com site. They are likely pre-sold before they enter that site. However, a site such as the legit online jobs site is SELLING someone on the product. In otherwords, they are in drastically different places on a sales funnel and using differing funnels.

Cheesy or not, at least these people are taking action. Sometimes if you take the time to build a classy site, you have missed the boat! It is cheaper to test a cheesy site and fail than the classy one (I know, I have been on both sides). You may want to read Ready Fire Aim to see what I mean.

If I had a book on research techniques, I'd sell it here. But I don't. The book would be quite heavy and long. It would have many chapters on many subjects, each of which takes work to master.

Here's ONLY ONE issue: when you go out and sample responses from people, who are you sampling? Are the people you are sampling a good representation of the population you eventually want to sell to? One of the fundamental issues in this kind of research is sampling. A 'sample' is the people you test. What you are trying to sample is a 'population.' For our purposes of this discussion, the 'population' is the body of people you want to sell to.

If I get a group of people to answer a questionnaire, do I know that this particular group of people is anything like the people I want to sell to? You've probably been asked to answer questionnaires. Sometimes you do, sometimes you give it a pass. The people who answer your questionnaire as opposed to passing the questionnaire by MAY be different from actually buyers. They may be answering your questionnaire to kill time, while buyers might be too busy to answer your questionnaire.

Basically, to get a good sample, you need to take many steps to randomize. And when you randomize, you have to follow up and make sure just about everyone answers your questionnaire. You have to follow up and call the deniers until they give in and answer.

Do you get my drift? Every step of doing a questionnaire-type study is painstaking. You can't just go out and get 300 people to answer your questions because you don't know what the 300 people represent.

If you're split testing sales, then YES... they are buying... don't confuse "survey responses" with actual sales.

Google Website Optimizer tells you when the test is statistically relevant. You can argue all you want... or you can try it.

"tells you when the test is statistically relevant" Are you talking about 'power'? Are you saying the product allows you to do a 'power function' test?* Or are you talking about 'statistical significance'? 'Statistical significance tests can be done comparing any two groups. That doesn't mean they are 'relevant' In fact, the word 'relevant' isn't usually used in the sampling field/literature.

No thank you, I will not buy.

* 'power' means whether the sample size you used is large enough to test what you mean to test. It is different from 'significance' 'Power functions' are associated with J.A. Cohen, among others.

Enjoy staying in academia then...

@cc, Yes, the example I gave is not exactly the same as the issue you talk about. But the principles behind the research are the same. I could give a more specific answer for the issue you raise, but I don't have the time right now, I'm not being paid to do a consult, and you might raise new questions.

If you finagle and finagle any group, you'll come up with differences. Good for you that you were able to raise CTRs from 2 to 8%.

Bear in mind that another seller of goods similar to yours might finagle and finagle their sites and raise rates from 2 to 8% without statistical tests, just by 'intuition' or 'salesmanship' or other non-statistics using techniques. And sometimes users of statistical tests waste their time and miss opportunities that are right in front of their noses.

And what about the people who use statistical techniques and don't get good results

@robert, an academic person with a numbers-related skill can come down with a darn good salary, benefits, retirement fund. And in their spare time can go on the net and cash in more.

This is really just a disquised version of the age old argument about graphics and copy.

Here's what I've been learning a LOT about in my copywriting over the past year or so, dealing with clients who are coming to me from niches' and full blown-markets that I previously didn't work much in..

I affectionately call them the "Hairy armpit / Burkenstock folks" - a phrase that they shared with me actually.

And this issue is more sensitive for them than even the Dr.'s, Chiropractors, Dentists and Attorneys I've helped in the past.

But in the end, here is the thing... a beautiful site with crap copy just doesn't work.

An ugly site with great copy does.

If you can put a "Look and Feel" that your target audience really relates to and that speaks to them (remember, we humans think in pictures... if you didn't know) AND combine that with great copy - you'll have a winner.

It isn't about one size fits all in IM... it's really about knowing your target market and doing your very best to deliver your offer / message in a way that will be well received and digested by them.

In real estate we found that if we used luxury homes in our graphics, we lost a lot of our potential clients in the blue collar markets and visa-versa. So, we pumped up our copy and took all of the graphics off and increased our response rates considerably.

It also depends on the kind of site you are creating and the kind of pages you are workin' on, right?

Squeeze pages are a lot different than authority sites... which are also much different than a salesletter or, now, a sales-video site.

Know your market... you'll know how to talk with them.

I've actually had to relearn this lesson multiple times from my "H.A.B." group... and I still get it wrong sometimes (my direct response isn't as sly as I'd like to think sometimes... they are very sensitive to that kind of languaging... VERY).

Anyway... know your market, know your purpose, you will know how to approach them and what kind of package to wrap your GREAT COPY or SUPER VIDEO in...

If you don't know... leave all graphics off and just go plain brown wrapper. It's a sound way to test your copy anyway.

Steve

I think tackier promotes more buying on impulse. And its DIFFERENT. There is too much clean vanilla crap.

I prefer tacky I think. But its been a long road, and an acquired taste.

@JohnMcCabe, Nice guppy you caught there. Is it a keeper?

You wrote:
Most niche marketers aren't interested in the same kind of rigor that someone working in, say, a medical study would be. They simply want to know two things.

Did the change I made increase the factor I was trying to improve?

If so, how likely is it that I can rely on that change to continue?

Yes, I understand. I'm not trying to turn niche marketers into Nobel Prize winners. The bottom line of my message is: if you do lousy split testing your results will be here today and gone tomorrow.

You may get better results after a badly-done split test, but don't expect those results to hold up over time. Do the same split test a month from now and the results may be the exact opposite. Don't rely on fancy pseudo-scientific magic formulas. That's all I'm saying.

You ask: "how likely is it that I can rely on that change to continue?" My answer: not very.

It does not matter whether it is classy or not. If the buyer wants the product he will buy it no matter what. And when classy costs extra, why spend?

No, TACKY (i.e. red bold headers etc) works wonders if you are selling information products. But if you are selling i.e. B2B products such as services to other companies etc, you may want to build a site slightly more "professional" looking.

Cool Post....

I think judging by the aesthetics of the site we have already made a decision the split second we arrive on the page, before we even read a word.... Look at when you meet someone for the first time, you've already judged them before they say a word, same applies to a website..... Can't remember who said "Who you are screams so loud at me that I can't hear what you're saying"

If, then, as Kevin put it "The look and feel of a site can be positive (contributing to the sales process), negative (making the sale less likely) or neutral", your site's copy has the job of making up the lost ground your shabby visuals triggered when your visitor first came.

Check out the stomper going natural series, there's some amazing eye tracking and aesthetic test's that prove what really sways peoples perceptions when first visiting your site