7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Platform: Blog vs. Squeeze question

by overspool
5 replies
I am trying two different platforms (blog and squeeze), and I’m trying to connect the dots regarding the funnel. The blog concept I understand. But just need a little clarification on squeeze pages. It seems the comfort building and credibility with a blog is done on the front end, while with a squeeze page it is done on the back end (opt in, get the content). And of course, I know you can do both, blog and opt in.

When you use the squeeze method do you drive the traffic from all your different sources (social sites, forums, paid, etc.) directly to the squeeze page? Or do you drive them to a page with content (posts, reviews, etc.) and then link them to a squeeze page?

With a blog style site I can get them to the site, let them digest the content I write, and then link to the affiliate sales page. I’m assuming with the squeeze I take them right to the squeeze from my traffic source, send them content and freebie, and eventually pitch the sale.
#blog #platform #question #squeeze
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by overspool View Post

    When you use the squeeze method do you drive the traffic from all your different sources (social sites, forums, paid, etc.) directly to the squeeze page? Or do you drive them to a page with content (posts, reviews, etc.) and then link them to a squeeze page?
    You can do either.

    Or send them to a content-rich page with all sorts of other stuff on it (i.e. not a "squeeze page") which also contains an incentivized opt-in at the top (this is my own choice, after all the split-testing I've done).

    Most people use the first of your two options, a squeeze page, but I'm far from convinced it's right, because different people opt in to each. These things are not as simple as they look. The classic mistake to avoid is the assumption that "the biggest list" is the one that will produce "the biggest income", because that's usually not the case. Ultimately, what works best for you, in your business, is something you can know only by testing - and that's not so easy! This (and the links inside it) may help: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post7939758
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8638965].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author overspool
      Thanks for the input, and it didn't take me long to realize you are one of the people on here who know what you are doing, so I have those bookmarked.

      I agree that content rich is a great way to go, but want to look at all the options. It just seems if you could get a really good squeeze system going it would be very valuable from a scalability standpoint.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8638991].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by overspool View Post

        I agree that content rich is a great way to go, but want to look at all the options. It just seems if you could get a really good squeeze system going it would be very valuable from a scalability standpoint.
        Yes, this is perfectly true: squeeze pages do have many advantages, of exactly that kind. They're quick and easy (but still need a bit of testing, to get the wording optimal). I readily understand why so many people use them, and of course they can be perfectly viable. It's probably mostly analytical obsessives like myself who insist on split-testing absolutely everything, who prefer alternatives.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8638997].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author overspool
          When you did your split testing, were you able to determine a ratio for the success of a squeeze page? For example: "A" site generated 10 sales "B" site generated 5, with "B" being the squeeze. Using these numbers along with how much time you have to invest in each you should be able to determine the exact breakeven. Lets say I invest X amount of time in site "A" to get 10 sales, and X amount in site "B" to get 5 sales, but "B" took exactly half as much time.

          In other words, the split testing would have had to take in to account time and effort variables as well as sales. The answer might be you can build more, lower revenue producing squeeze pages with less "effort" - instead of building less, higher revenue producing content pages - which would justify the squeeze method. Just curious how that factored in to your experiment.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8639026].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by overspool View Post

            When you did your split testing, were you able to determine a ratio for the success of a squeeze page? For example: "A" site generated 10 sales "B" site generated 5, with "B" being the squeeze.
            Yes, of course ... (I don't really know another way of doing a valid split-test). Each time I did a split-test, over a 6-month period I built two separate lists and sent them the same autoresponder series and compared the incomes. (There's no point in comparing just the list sizes, i.e. the number of people opting in: that doesn't tell you what you need to know, for all the reasons explained here).

            Originally Posted by overspool View Post

            Lets say I invest X amount of time in site "A" to get 10 sales, and X amount in site "B" to get 5 sales, but "B" took exactly half as much time.
            I hear you (I think) but this isn't what I measure when I split-test.

            I haven't spent any time on putting up a squeeze-page, to be honest: it's something I effectively "outsource" (I employ a couple of full-time VA's, so it's kind of "in-house labor" to me, strictly speaking, rather than outsourcing).

            Originally Posted by overspool View Post

            The answer might be you can build more, lower revenue producing squeeze pages with less "effort" - instead of building less, higher revenue producing content pages - which would justify the squeeze method. Just curious how that factored in to your experiment.
            Yes, I see what you mean.

            I didn't try to factor that in, because it isn't really relevant to me.

            Every time I've split-tested this, the difference in the results has been so overwhelmingly significant that to be honest I've stopped testing it, now. My traffic demographics are the same in all of my niches, and I'm satisfied that - for me - it's the traffic demographics that are relevant to this, rather than the niches.

            For me, there's really not much to think about, here: squeeze pages cost me a lot of money. I have to have a website anyway, and it just makes far more sense to do my opt-in that way, because my "potentially best customers" are exactly the people who won't opt in to a squeeze page - as I've proven again and again, regardless of niche.

            Of course, I'm not suggesting that this will necessarily be true for everyone else as well! Ultimately, one knows the right answer only by testing for oneself ... but it isn't nearly as easy as some people suggest (those tend to be people who measure it according to opt-in rates, i.e. completely missing the point and invalidating the whole exercise ).
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8639803].message }}

Trending Topics