Which Squeeze Page is The Best? Split testing on Two Squeeze Pages

37 replies
Following are the two versions tested in the split test and their conversion rates:

Original page: 42% conversion rate





Best performing design (Variation A): 56% conversion rate



Variation A converted at 56% and improved conversions by 33% over the original version.

Screenshot of the results from Google Experiments


I never expected variation A to outperform the original!! The original looks more beautiful doesn't it?

I'd love to see your comments..


#conversion #page #pages #split #split test #squeeze #squeeze pages
  • Profile picture of the author Confined To Life
    I'd go for the original but change the headline. I think you need a more to-the-point headline. But it is quite interesting that the second one outperformed the first.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7513716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
    Yeah now I'm thinking to split test different headlines..

    Thanks for your comment
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7513719].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Confined To Life
      Originally Posted by SamAlnawar View Post

      Yeah now I'm thinking to split test different headlines..

      Thanks for your comment
      No worries. You've got great conversions already.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7513731].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Shaun OReilly
        Congratulations on actually testing your own squeeze
        pages instead of simply following the herd.

        The prettier graphical squeeze page has become a lot
        more popular recently because some of the so-called
        gurus have been using it.

        Never copy what others do blindly without first testing
        it for yourself and let your own site visitors let you know
        which is best.

        As well as the graphical background, your opt-in form
        button, button text, e-mail entry box text and privacy
        text are different in each version.

        In addition to testing your visitor-to-subscriber conversion
        rate, also follow through in your tracking to make sure that
        you know how your versions affect SALES, not just opt-ins.

        Dedicated to mutual success,

        Shaun
        Signature

        .

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7513761].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Confined To Life
          Originally Posted by Shaun OReilly View Post

          In addition to testing your visitor-to-subscriber conversion
          rate, also follow through in your tracking to make sure that
          you know how your versions affect SALES, not just opt-ins.

          Dedicated to mutual success,

          Shaun
          That's a good point.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7513767].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
          Originally Posted by Shaun OReilly View Post

          Congratulations on actually testing your own squeeze
          pages instead of simply following the herd.

          The prettier graphical squeeze page has become a lot
          more popular recently because some of the so-called
          gurus have been using it.

          Never copy what others do blindly without first testing
          it for yourself and let your own site visitors let you know
          which is best.

          As well as the graphical element, your opt-in form button,
          button text, e-mail entry box text and privacy text are
          different in each version.

          In addition to testing your visitor-to-subscriber conversion
          rate, also follow through in your tracking to make sure that
          you know how your versions affect SALES, not just opt-ins.

          Dedicated to mutual success,

          Shaun
          You're definitely right! since I learned the art of split testing, I've seen
          a lot of improvements and I'm still learning new things everyday..

          Regarding the opt-in form button,
          button text, e-mail entry box text and privacy text.. that's interesting,
          never paid attention to that.. Thank you! I'll make sure to play with
          these details soon..
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7513796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Will Edwards
    I'd be interested to see you test variation A against the exact same form, button, spam message etc, but with the original background.

    Will
    Signature
    Is This The World's Easiest Way to Make Money?

    Click Here to Find Out
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514022].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by SamAlnawar View Post

    I never expected variation A to outperform the original!!
    Interesting thread, and interesting experience, Sam. Absolutely no impoliteness implied at all, but I think that a very high proportion of marketers who have previously split-tested a few squeeze pages would guess/predict that variation A would significantly outperform the original, obviously given the same traffic, by definition.

    I'd certainly have been extremely surprised, had your figures been the other way round.

    Originally Posted by SamAlnawar View Post

    The original looks more beautiful doesn't it?
    Yes, but that's only part of the reason it performs worse.

    Prediction: if you remove the unnecessary and unpleasant Capital Letters Beginning Every Word from the text above the opt-in box, the conversion-rate will increase another 2% or so, simply because more people will read it. Try it and see.

    That's a semi-confident prediction based on quite a lot of research and experience (though it may still be wrong!). This next one is only a wild guess, by comparison: I think removing the word "Guaranteed" from the end might also increase the conversion rate a tiny bit, perhaps by not losing credibility with the few readers who'll currently (consciously or subsconsciously) be put off by it. Words overused in copywriting in an attempt to reinforce and/or provide reassurance can very easily turn out to have the opposite effect in reality.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514052].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Interesting thread, and interesting experience, Sam. Absolutely no impoliteness implied at all, but I think that a very high proportion of marketers who have previously split-tested a few squeeze pages would guess/predict that variation A would significantly outperform the original, obviously given the same traffic, by definition.

      I'd certainly have been extremely surprised, had your figures been the other way round.



      Yes, but that's only part of the reason it performs worse.

      Prediction: if you remove the unnecessary and unpleasant Capital Letters Beginning Every Word from the text above the opt-in box, the conversion-rate will increase another 2% or so, simply because more people will read it. Try it and see.

      That's a semi-confident prediction based on quite a lot of research and experience (though it may still be wrong!). This next one is only a wild guess, by comparison: I think removing the word "Guaranteed" from the end might also increase the conversion rate a tiny bit, perhaps by not losing credibility with the few readers who'll currently (consciously or subsconsciously) be put off by it. Words overused in copywriting in an attempt to reinforce and/or provide reassurance can very easily turn out to have the opposite effect in reality.
      Your comment about the word "Guaranteed" makes a lot of sense
      to me..I'll remove it and see what will happen.. Thank you for your
      informative comment..
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7515404].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsouravs
    Is "Get instant" working better than "Let me in" ???
    Signature

    I can convert your Non-Responsive website to Responsive website ... How sweet is that? :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514060].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Janice Sperry
    I know you should never try to predict the results of split testing. I also know you are supposed to use what works not what is just your personal preference. Nevertheless, I have never split tested "YES! Let Me In!" because I just don't like it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514083].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    I'm not surprised. The simpler layouts usually test higher when I split test, too. The hardest part is controlling the variables in the test. It's tempting to change more than one little thing, thinking a seemingly minor change won't affect the results. But you'd be surprised. Sometimes a simple color, position, or single-word change can have an impact.

    Good for you for actually testing, though! That's how you end up with a squeeze page that rocks.

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514769].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KingMedia
    Interesting.

    Curious... May I ask what traffic you used to test this?

    Cold visitors from paid bing/yahoo, etc? ...or were they warm already from solo ads, etc? ...or even hot from your own list or website visitors?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514816].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author siddharthdeswal
      I would anyday go with Variation A. Working for Visual Website Optimizer, I know from experience that rarely does the "beautiful" one get more conversions. The winner is almost always the "clearer" easier-to-read one.

      The graphics in Control actually distract from the message and the grey background means the text isn't all that easy to read.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514910].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
      Originally Posted by KingMedia View Post

      Interesting.

      Curious... May I ask what traffic you used to test this?

      Cold visitors from paid bing/yahoo, etc? ...or were they warm already from solo ads, etc? ...or even hot from your own list or website visitors?
      90% from solo ads..
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7515409].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AndrewStark
    Hi Sam,

    I'd like to build on Shaun's point.

    What is your double opt-in rate and sales funnel conversions?

    Looking at that I would predict that a lot of people are using "throw-away" e-mails to see what's behind the blind ad copy. The newbie / curious marketer are getting wiser and keeping their personal e-mail address well hidden.

    A page with personal branding and explanation of what you get for the e-mail will generate far less leads, but could the increased quality of lead could double your sales.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7515426].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
      Originally Posted by AndrewStark View Post

      Hi Sam,

      I'd like to build on Shaun's point.

      What is your double opt-in rate and sales funnel conversions?

      Looking at that I would predict that a lot of people are using "throw-away" e-mails to see what's behind the blind ad copy. The newbie / curious marketer are getting wiser and keeping their personal e-mail address well hidden.

      A page with personal branding and explanation of what you get for the e-mail will generate far less leads, but could the increased quality of lead could double your sales.
      Hi Andrew,

      I haven't used double opt-in but based on my broadcasts stats I don't
      see the results that I expect.. so I think you're right a lot of people are
      using "throw-away" e-mails..

      This is something I should put into consideration.. Thanks a lot!
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7515827].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    I'm not surprised about the results. My ugly squeeze page converts far better than the other pretty and 'glamourized' squeeze pages i've had before.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7515974].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    I've seen the first squeeze page too often now.

    And, to me it implies the offer will be something
    sleazy in the get rich quick and easy push button
    software arena while working from the beach.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7517370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Micheal
    Variation A squeeze page is brilliant. I would like to subscribe also.
    It is very clear and direct. I think you will convert more if you change the 'guaranteed' color to red.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7517396].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
      Originally Posted by David Micheal View Post

      Variation A squeeze page is brilliant. I would like to subscribe also.
      It is very clear and direct. I think you will convert more if you change the 'guaranteed' color to red.
      Good point!! Thank you..
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518631].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
        Originally Posted by drunkenmonkey View Post

        This is an open forum.

        Don't show your cards and certainly not for free.

        #cantbelievewhatijustseensomeonedoforfreeverysilly indeediwonderwhoisgoingtojackthatheadline?

        DM

        $0.02
        Why not? Aren't we all here to help each other? Well my friend I don't
        care about money as much as I care about helping others.. you need
        to change your mindset..
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7519302].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Edwin Torres
    The first image is too mainstream right now, and I had a hunch that type of squeeze pages never really worked too well.

    I could of guessed the second one worked better from the start. It looks more clean, and less hypey.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518666].message }}
  • You've far to many significant changes in that A/B to know if aesthetics played a part or not.

    Be interesting if you retained the same call to action button verbiage, same headline etc, and just swopped out the colours etc.

    Determine that, then A/B again one element at a time. It's the only way to get meaningful metrics.

    It's quite likely the results remain the same, ghetto often out pulls design led optins, they send the message it's less commercial and more informative based, although this depends on the traffic source and space you're operating in.

    You'll never know though until you only split test one element at a time, you could be coming to entirely the wrong conclusion unfortunately.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7520721].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SamAlnawar
      Originally Posted by Midas3 Consulting View Post

      You've far to many significant changes in that A/B to know if aesthetics played a part or not.

      Be interesting if you retained the same call to action button verbiage, same headline etc, and just swopped out the colours etc.

      Determine that, then A/B again one element at a time. It's the only way to get meaningful metrics.

      It's quite likely the results remain the same, ghetto often out pulls design led optins, they send the message it's less commercial and more informative based, although this depends on the traffic source and space you're operating in.

      You'll never know though until you only split test one element at a time, you could be coming to entirely the wrong conclusion unfortunately.
      I see what you mean and that's what I'm doing now.. one element at a time Thank you!
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7521630].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author david carr
    Not really a fair test though as you have to many things that are different, many people here are just focusing on the background when it could have been any number of things that made the difference.

    Regards
    Dave
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821382].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RedShifted
    I've tested a lot of different buttons before and the word "instant" usually results in a higher conversion.

    So I think the button has a lot to do with it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821518].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jgant
    I had a higher conversion rate with a graphical squeeze in a non-MMO niche. I suspect it varies niche-to-niche. I did the testing 4 months ago when the graphical squeeze pages were more of a novelty. Thanks for sharing results.
    Signature
    How I hit $10,000+ per month very fast w/ 1 niche blog - Click Here to learn more (no opt-in).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821726].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thatjc
    No surprise really.
    Plenty of research has shown that the same offer text on a white background converts better than on a colored or pictorial background. Also, there's lots of research showing that dark text on a light background outperforms light text on a dark background.

    What's the purpose of a squeeze page? To look pretty or to clearly make an offer? Clarity always trumps pretty. Version "A" has more clarity.

    Also, version "A" uses the very thoroughly tested and optimized button style and label mentioned in several places here and in other forums.

    Even though your results confirm other research, it's great that you did your own tests. Testing is so much better than hunches or fads - or even relying on the tests of others.
    Signature
    "You can count the seeds in an apple, but you can't count the apples in a seed."
    Online Visual Communication expert
    Visual Marketing Info signup: Visual Marketing Online
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821803].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nksurf
    That is interesting too because
    the 1st one Im already distracted to the background and how pretty it is

    the 2nd one is straight to the point and there is nothing else to look at or get distracted from..

    good idea...
    Signature

    Thank you

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7822672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lucidbs
    I'd personally go for the plain text one. Clean ugly design to me pulls better optin rate. Of course you need to test it.
    Signature

    Revolutionary WP Plugin Helps You Acquire, Manage, Showcase Your Reviews In a One-time 15 Minute Setup. Attract Facebook Viral Traffic Passively. Click here to learn more.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7823990].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author khooster1
    Loading Time play a critical factor for conversion.
    I reckon that the loading time for original squeeze page might be too long as compared to Variation A.

    Beside this, the fonts size in Original is a bit small. Somehow, it is not that eye-catching.

    It is all this little details that make the difference.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7824228].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave37
    I prefer the first one because I like visually enhanced pages, but it seems the 2nd one got more conversion. However since they are close (44 vs 56%), you might get different results at another test
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7824270].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KrisN
    Nice results.

    It is said, however, that under 1000 unique views PER variation you really can't conclude anything.

    So keep the test going until you hit at least 1000 views for each variation.
    Signature

    My journey to 1000 subscribers: Detailed Success - Traffic -> Subscribers -> Sales

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7824858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ross Petal
    Great to see a warrior doing split testing . Unfortunately, a reasonable percentage of IMers fail to do this so well done.

    I prefer the original version but using other powerful copy text with maybe with Red bold font sprinkled in there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7824917].message }}

Trending Topics