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

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.

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

Thanks for your comment

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

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.

Is "Get instant" working better than "Let me in" ???

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.