11 replies to this topic

[iamlost]

Landing Pages 3.0: Best Practices To Make Content More Meaningful by Scott Brinker, 15-February-2012.
Note: when something web related is published, and especially when printed, you know that it is main stream on the way to being superseded.

Regardless, the points he makes are worth considering (as are researching their foundations, possible implementations, and future possibilities).

If you aren't doing some variation on his 'READY' page checklist are you simply outputting? guessing at visitor response? ...

And while the following have been mentioned here at Cre8 over the past few years how many of you have brought them into your process?

Instead, they’re now driving conversion programs from a higher set of principles:
* Deliver meaningful, context-relevant content
* Present that content with an engaging, affective design
* Offer a compelling, but not coercive, “next step” to take
...
Landing Page 3.0 marketers have studied best practices, absorbed them into their thinking, but they’re now ready to synthesize new creative ideas of their own — unafraid to break the “rules” to deliver remarkable experiences to their audience.

Note: try not to gag on his Web2.0 penchant for behaviourial numbering...

Of course he doesn't get into how you on your site might discern and appropriately serve contextually relevant content...
Nor how to detect or filter by market segment to present an appropriate engaging, affective design...
Nor how one might identify the psychographic (or IAO for Interests, Activities, and Opinions) variables that allow optimisation of compelling but not coercive next steps...
But then neither am I.

But with the suggestions one can do the research, one can offer more and in turn receive more than one's competitors. Occasionally much much more.

[DCrx]

I don't understand -- where's the SEO, the search engine is all. The search engine is mother. The search engine is father. All hail the search engine.

Just kidding. I'm a kidder.

Okay. Nice article. What have we learned? Well, the numbers are in and the verdict is ...Not Much. Slashing your prices, Groupon style, is not 3.0 thinking. Not strategic. Not smart. In fact, it's more of the dominant form on the web "Don't make me think ...about my business ...about my customers ...about making more profit ....or about anything, ever. And the full flowering of this is the idea, very modern, that you give your stuff away for free, you don't have to market (write or test copy) at all.

Brace yourselves. Because I feel another term coming on. Let's call it Start Trek economics. Pulling together ecommerce, the never ending attempt to reinflate the dotcom bubble economy, and a reality distortion field of epic proportions. Like there are no bathrooms on the Enterprise, you quickly realize the other missing fixture: Money.

Want a star ship? Want to go adventuring? Okay, here you go.

People are (despite the rationalizations) Grouponing themselves into the ground. This is not a fluke. This is how Groupon is designed to work. Groupon attracts consumers, not customers. People with absolutely no loyalty, only there to suck up bargain prices.

The article uses a really good example for an alternative. Although I seriously doubt even the author understand the implications or applications.

The alternative would be LevelUp. As in how you "level up" in game design. As your long term business loyalty increases, you get greater discounts than you would as a newbie. With the lion's share of discounts reserved for best customers. This upends the typical business model on the web.

99bottomfeeders. Fiverr. Craigslist. Crowdsourcing sites. Contest sites. All are part of the old, Star Trek economics model. A model that is so lopsidely front end loaded toward new customers (consumers, really) and worse yet mere visitors, it alienates customers. And makes best customers feel stupid for staying with you.

LevelUp takes the superficial insight of the article and gives a practical example. Want to test something? Before making your site into a game site clone, try the more sophisticated route of figuring out how your better customres level up.



P.S. Is taking the site layout of the example from the article, cutting and pasting it into a totally dissimilar site a superficial, knee jerk, reaction without thought? Certainly. ...And your point would be ....?

Edited by DCrx, 16 February 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[DonnaFontenot]

Some days, I come here and feel overwhelmingly stupid because I just don't get what some are saying. For instance, I have no clue why Groupon or that style of marketing to obtain new customers would have anything whatsoever to do with the article in question on landing pages, so everything DCrx wrote is a complete mystery to me.

Beyond that, I agree that in some cases, breaking the "rules" of good landing page design can be a good idea in some cases. In the example, the goal is to get players to play a game, which is very oriented towards the visual experience. It makes sense then, to forgo the standard text-based landing page, and hook the user via images, images, images of the actual game experience.

That kind of image focus might work well in other areas such as web design or any other area that needs to showcase something visually.

But...the rules still work well in many cases, so I wouldn't just throw them away.

I'm actually testing and reviewing an A/B tester this weekend, so I may create a test of a standard, rules-based landing page vs. a more visual one to see how that goes. Two...two...two tests in one!

[DCrx]

I have no clue why Groupon or that style of marketing to obtain new customers would have anything whatsoever to do with the article in question on landing pages, so everything DCrx wrote is a complete mystery to me.

We're in good company. I don't really see the relevance in turning your site into a gaming portal, without any evidence to back up, fits in with anthing within the first part of the article itself. Especially an article which talks about A/B split testing -- yet doesn't suggest A/B split testing some adaptation of the end example.

READY seems interesting. But then there's no real linkage where Dragons of Atlantis is an explplar of the READY formula now, nor goes beyond it.

However, IF you know the term gamification has been popular, you might make the mental leap to this....



Otherwise we're back to the bad old days of do cool stuff and people with wheelbarrows full of cash will dump that money on your front lawn. Because the end of the article is a mystery based on everything leading up to it. (I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt due to that first part).

Surprisingly enough, this would be the context the article seems to take great stock in; and it's missing from Dragons of Atlantis.

I'm sure the point is a little bit more sophisticated than breaking the rules given the READY formula is a bunch of rules. It is the third generation version OF the rules. The only way I can make sense of a 3.0 version is game dynamics -- which does have some connection to most of what the article talks about. If so, we're talking about one heck of a lot more than layout and replacing paragraphs with pretty pictures.

For most companies, this wouldn't be a change of landing page -- it'd be a change in the way they conduct their business.

Edited by DCrx, 16 February 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[iamlost]

However, IF you know the term gamification has been popular, you might make the mental leap to this....

... Because the end of the article is a mystery based on everything leading up to it.

...

I'm sure the point is a little bit more sophisticated than breaking the rules given the READY formula is a bunch of rules. The only way I can make sense of a 3.0 version is game dynamics -- which does have some connection to most of what the article talks about. If so, we're talking about one heck of a lot more than layout.

I thought I was careful in how I framed my opening post to direct the conversation... should have known better with you all

I mentioned that I dislike numbering behaviours as the article has done, because one rarely drops everything from version 1 and shifts totally to version 2; in reality one adds to one's toolbox of skills and knowledge and soft/hardware and uses whatever combination seems most appropriate at the time.

And I thought I was being careful by not bringing game theory into the thread especially in relation to those so-called 'higher principles'. Once again, oh well But it does apply, perhaps is even required, to provide the mindset needed to 'deliver remarkable experiences'. I've been using game theory ever since I learned about in the Navy a very long time ago (most of the ships I served on are now artificial reefs ). It has been invaluable in my business life.

I do find it a problem that most of the books I've read that apply game theory to sites, business, marketing, etc. do a real shoddy patchy job of it. Sooo... if anyone ( hi, DCrx ) can suggest competent articles, theses, books, et al I would appreciate it.

p.s. and, yes indeed, we are definitely talking about one heck of a lot more than layout.

[DCrx]

Gamification is not game theory. Has nothing (really nothing) to do with traditional game theory.

Not a bad thing. But this gets us back into all the problems with engagement, UX, etc, etc.

Really all you need is stuff to test. Okay. Groupon tested against LevelUp. Either as a client or just the concepts behind each.

[glyn]

This is funny. it's like seing an industry wake up to the fact that communication needs to be believable, clear, ethical. Liked the gaming vid

[DonnaFontenot]

And I've gotten lost again in the maze of the conversation.

I'll back out, go find my cheese in the mazeless lazyboy easychair grandma-rocker room, and leave the maze to y'all.

[DCrx]

My current interest is a new thing on YouTube.

I first saw this with a walkthrough of Orcs Must Die! (Doesn't work with embedding). This is an interactive video, where you can make choices which takes you to another YouTube video showing the results of your choice -- seamlessly. At least on broadband it seems pretty continuous to me.

So, you could do in depth help or how to, and get context that way. Custom sales pitch. Consultative sales pitch.

If I was going to make an argument for Jquery not being an obnoxious pest akin to Flash, I'd look into similar structures for presentations, infographics, that sort of thing.

Edited by DCrx, 16 February 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[iamlost]

Classic game theory is rather staid and theoretical, however, in practice, especially in marketing and sales practice, it is neither. Unfortunately there are few (no?) coherent books or papers on the practical business version.

Gamification is not game theory. Has nothing (really nothing) to do with traditional game theory.

I disagree although with respect given your qualifier of 'traditional' game theory. I am quite comfortable considering game theory as providing a strategic concept/overview and gamification a tactical option therein. At least that is how I've approached it from way before gamification was a term.

The military call(ed) it War Gaming, economists call(ed) it Game Theory, and psychologists call(ed) it Social Situations Theory. Regardless of name it is all about how groups of people interact.

And gamification is one way to encourage certain behaviour(s). I should also like to point out that many so so called gamification actions were being utilised long before they were incorporated into games. Also utilising games and fun in other contexts such as marketing is not new, only the moniker is.

But this gets us back into all the problems with engagement, UX, etc, etc.

Really all you need is stuff to test.

And I do, a whole lot of testing of a whole lot of hypotheses based on various theories and data. But it always nice to have a solid foundation from which to build which is why I also read a great deal. Across a multitude of disciplines. I also do a whole lot of trend forecasting and reading of industry, academia, economic, and technological forecasts; because we live in a complex intertwined world and, being lazy, I like to work in the most probable direction.

Which brings me back to game theory. And new improved shiny labelled gamification.

[iamlost]

Thank you for pointing me to "Orcs". Loved it. Will have to watch a number of times more. Just the first run through had ideas going off like flashbulbs (remember those?). I've done similar with text ala some books but hadn't thought of doing it with short vids. Possibilities!

[DCrx]

remember those?

As a kid I built a star ship model and photographed it. used luminous paint and blacklight for portals and windows. I rigged a flash cube to go off as the shutter of the camera was open and photographed it going off behind the model. The resulting photo looked like the starship was flying away from a star.

This was when PhotoShop was just a twinkle of an idea.

Edited by DCrx, 17 February 2012 - 04:40 AM.