WordPress Landing Pages Made Easy

CopyBlogger recently released a landing page optimization tool for use with WordPress called Premise. The solution  is remarkable for numerous reasons, including the ability to insert predefined proven landing page templates into any WordPress site without disrupting the main theme layout. It also includes optimization tools and training from industry experts Bryan Eisenberg and Jeff Sexton. But this isn’t a review of the product. It’s a look at how landing page optimization experts use landing pages to sell a product that produces landing pages that sell.

The first thing you should notice is that there are two calls to action (not counting the Back button), creating the asymmetric dominance of the purchase choices. But which choice in the set is the decoy?

Premise promotes the Ultimate option in the following ways*:

• the name makes it sound premium
• it includes infinitely more training and support for just under twice the cost
• the headline and feature text is bigger and bolder
• the call-out box is positioned slightly higher than that of the Starter option
• there is a really convincing cloud with “Best Value!” written on it and an arrow pointing at the Ultimate option

Copy Blogger promotes the Ultimate option for good reason: it is the most profitable option for them. Customers are more likely to need support and training in the first 6 months, and that need diminishes rapidly over time, vastly reducing the cost of those infinite additional months of services.

If the tools and training included with Premise are this clever, then it is well worth the investment.

[*special thanks to @clifftam for helping with this visual analysis]

Using landing pages as an effective internet marketing tool is about creating the right experiences to lead targeted visitors to a specific compelling call to action that converts into a sale. At first glance, a rational and logical approach to optimizing landing pages would be to directly craft one persona-based experience (layout, design, message) and present the most effective request for the prospect to take some action that converts to a lead or sale. The simplest way to accomplish this would seem to be to have only one option for the targeted persona to choose from, and you end up with a neat ratio of one landing page to one call to action. However, there is an inherent error in this logic:

All landing pages have at least two distinct and
obvious calls to action

Even Google’s home page, often praised for its simplicity, has an astounding 19 calls to action in its sparse design (20 on days when Google Doodle links somewhere, and more than 30 if you expand the “more” option). That’s a lot of ways to not run a search.

More than 20 calls to action

I want to examine what Google did to test and improve this as a landing page, and why it works. But first we should learn a little about predictable irrationality.

The truth about relativity

In Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely describes the importance of relativity in decision behaviour using numerous examples, including the introduction of bread maker appliances at William-Sonoma. When the first bread maker was introduced in the store, it was not as successful as expected. Customers did not seem to know why they needed a bread maker, as compared to one of many other options of home appliances (coffee makers, toasters, mixers, etc.).

Each call to action, such as the action to purchase a bread maker, always has an option to not take the action. The no-action option is very safe and comforting for the prospect because they are already familiar with the consequences of that decision. It is easy to understand what life will be like without a bread maker because that is how you already live.

All landing pages come with this no-action option: the Back button.  The visitor decides between  your call to action and taking just about any other action. The Back button is the loudest call to action on your landing page.

The Decoy Effect and landing pages

Back to William-Sonoma. The store did want to sell bread makers, but how?  The problem was solved, by clever marketers of course, by introducing a much larger, fancier, and more expensive bread machine. Now customers bought the cheaper bread maker.

Good, Better, Best marketers might be disappointed that the newly introduced model was not the big seller. However, customers now have the choices of no bread machine, a compact bread machine, and a large, expensive bread machine. This change of context makes it much easier for customers to understand why they should select a less expensive bread machine that fits on their counter.

Before the introduction of the second bread maker, the choice is symmetrical: buy or don’t buy. This choice heavily favors the familiar don’t-buy option (also known as the no-action option). When the second bread maker is introduced, the conceptual proximity of the two buy options dominates the decision behaviour by providing one option for the don’t-buy side versus two options for the buy side. Even though the buyer is much more familiar with the don’t-buy option, the focus is unbalanced toward deciding which is the better buy option given the new context. Landing page designers can irrationally promote one of their options by pairing a new obvious strong and weak choice to create an asymmetrical dominating set, what Ariely calls the Decoy Effect.

I’m feeling lucky

So, what was Google’s decoy bread maker? It is the I’m Feeling Lucky button. This button has been a part of the Google page design from its beginning, and remains just as prominent now. In December 2009, Google implemented a very unusual and revealing update to the home page.

The Decoy Effect

On the official Google blog, Marissa Mayer, VP of Search Product and User Experience, explains how the fade in feature was designed and tested to focus on calls to action that promote search versus the other Google product options:

…the “fade in” is an elegant solution that provides options to those who want them, but removes distractions for the user intent on searching.

In the minimalistic first presentation of the Google search, there are only two calls to action: Google Search and I’m Feeling Lucky. It could have been just the Google Search button, but I’m Feeling Lucky has be retained all these years. However, I think Google have wisely kept the I’m Feeling Lucky button not just for nostalgia or consistency but as a proper decoy. Online you have many search engines to choose from, but here Google presents two options within its own search: the seemingly infinite pages of ranked results and the I’m Feeling Lucky single result, which acts as a nice decoy.

NO this is NOT a word

We need more of this simplicity and authority online to rein in the time drift of online research. The website isthisaword.com is a good example of how to achieve simplicity and authority online. Bonus points for the command line-like interface option of isthisaword.com/blogmented. Small minus for the option to waste some time on Google results.

The concept of isthisaword.com is amazing: Yes/No question + keyword + API = WIN. Here are some other isthisaword-esque websites I’d like to see.

shouldibuy.com/ipad + mint.com API

isthisagoodmovie.com/Ishtar + imdb.com API

isthisafungame.com/GranTurismo5 + gamerankings.com API

doineedtoseeadoctor.com/weirdrash + WebMD.com API

I am sure there are more possibilities, but there isn’t an amidone.com to tell me to just stop.

It’s like Skype lite in your GMail. Video calls – check. VOIP to landline – check.

Calling Ted Taco

Sure, 5 way 10-way conference calling is missing (for now), but the potential threat this presents to industry leader Skype reaches beyond the free North American calling introduction.

First, there is the integration into GMail, making your Google contact list instantly available. That’s over 170 million adopters out of the gates. Not bad.

Certainly Google can match Skype feature for feature in the near future. If it comes to a price war, Google has deep pockets. Google has brand recognition. What more does it need?

Google’s biggest future advantage – transcripts

Google has been constantly improving it’s voice transcript features. Google Voice has voicemail to text and YouTube features automatic subtitle transcripts now. For Google more index-able content is the true goal. The better able search results can be measured as relevant, the longer Google can dominate search online.

The possibility of a future feature to transcribe conversations through Google Voice calls would make this a killer choice vs Skype. Imagine conducting interviews or research calls using, especially conference calls, and having each caller tagged by source and a full transcript email at the end of the call. That would be enough for me to choose Google over almost any phone service.

Goodbye Google Wave, Goodbye

Earlier today, Google announced the closing of Google Wave on the official Google Blog. This news has been reported throughout the tech industry all day.

I started as a complete Google Wave skeptic, but after I secured a coveted invite last December I became a loyal and vocal fan of the real-time collaboration tool. Initially it was touted as an “email-killer”, but acted more like just another inbox, and a very confusing one.

Goodbye Google Wave

The reason I loved, and will miss Google Wave, is for the real-time collaborative note taking. Every other week, I use Wave to take notes for a live webinar series with colleagues across the world. There are about 60 of us in the group, although only 2-3 of us take the notes (1 writer, 1 link and image fetcher, and one editor/formatter). The result and live experience is amazing. Google promises to deliver an export method that should preserve our work and incorporate the technologies from developing Wave into other projects. Google is also making the Wave source code open for others to develop and incorporate.

What now? 5 tools that may replace Google Wave

Google purchased EtherPad and folded that development team and technology into Google Docs. They then caused controversy by shutting down the EtherPad site and service for its loyal users, casting some skepticism on cloud-based solutions. Now with the second closure of this technology as Google Wave, users will hesitate supporting emerging cloud-based solutions even more. In any case, there is definitely a need for a replacement collaboration tool. Here are some ideas of where to look:

• MindMeister – real-time collaborative mind mapping – not traditional note taking, but mind maps are great for notes and brainstorms

• iEtherPad / MeetingWords – based on EtherPad open-source code solutions – a very simple real-time collaborative note-taking solution – no images or links, but easy to share and invite others to use

• Google Docs – by the time Google Wave closes, hopefully Google will have moved most of the tech into Google Docs

• CoWord – a software client that turns MS Word into a collaborative editor. Also comes in a PowerPoint flavor.

• GoTo Meeting, Skype, IM, or real life meetings – old-school dictation or hot-potato file passing with live real-time discussion. It should work in a pinch. It did in the past.

There will probably be more options by the time Google Wave is gone for good. If you know a great collaboration tool, add it to this blog’s comments.

|—————————|—————————|—————————|

Causal Tops        Casual Pants         Work Pants          Work Tops

However, each of us is adamant in our behaviour regarding empty hangers, but we never talk about it. I am sure many people are not willing to air their clean laundry, but here goes.

Someone has moved my hangers

Her system – tidy collector

When Laura takes clothes off their hangers, she collects all the empty hangers at the far right of her (much larger) share of the closet.

|—————————|—————————|———————hhhhhh| (h = empty hanger)

Causal Tops        Casual Pants         Work Pants          Work Tops

Moving all the hangers to one side gives her two clear advantages:

• It’s easier to identify the remaining clean-outfit options because clean clothes have more room between item and can be easily turned and viewed.
• There is no need to hunt for hangers to put back clean laundry.

My system – negative placeholders

When I get dressed each morning, I leave the unused hanger exactly where it belongs in my wardrobe spectrum. Although, my wife probably disagrees that this is where it belongs and probably views it as the equivalent of a comma splice.

|—h—–h——-h–|——h—-h——–|———-hh——–|   (h = empty hangers)

Causal Tops  Casual Pants   Work Pants   Work Tops

This gives me two clear advantages:

• It’s easier to identify missing outfit options because an empty hanger could indicate, for example, that my favourite jeans are in the wash.
• The hunt for empty hangers is very easy because they should be in the appropriate spot in my clean clothes continuum (I say “should be” because every so often my wife slips into my closet and “corrects” my hanging system to match hers; the editor is always right).

There is no correct method, and each method is very effective.

There are filers and then there are pilers

Let’s step out of the closet and look at other organization systems both of us use. Laura is a very committed “filer”. Her desk is very neat and tidy. Even her movies, music, books, and inbox are carefully organized, usually alphabetically.

I, however, am definitely a “piler” as demonstrated by the strategic mess that is my desk. I organize my movies, books, video games, and inbox by levels of frequency of activity based on my desire to reuse, making it easy for me to find things but annoying for anyone with different preferences.

How we deal with our clean laundry and desks reveals much about what kind of organizer we are.

Look at your closet and desk and ask yourself, what is my system?

The sleeker iPhone 4 - now with more AR

iPhone 4 launched with a great list of new features: the “resolutionary” new retina screen, thinner size, better battery, better antenna, and a faster processor. Because iPhone is an augmented reality device, many people will probably focus on the improved camera. First, the upgrade to a 5mp back camera—now with an LED flash—and second the cool forward-facing camera for FaceTalk (cue the iChatRhoulette apps to flood the store). The dual camera system will produce some cool AR apps if developers can take advantage of both cameras at the same time. It is certainly nice to see after Apple dropped the AR essentials, the GPS, compass, and camera, from the iPad.

One aspect of iPhone 4 that is not getting a lot of attention is the three-axis gyroscope. It doesn’t even make Apple’s feature list, but it is in the tech specs. The gyroscope is being viewed as the next evolution of the accelerometer that enabled so much tilt-action gaming in the previous iPhone and iPod Touch units. In fact, the three-axis gyroscope for rotational orientation, combined with the directional accelerometer information, effectively creates a six-axis controller (nod to Sony in name and Nintendo in market domination). The gyroscope adds more than some finesse to gaming controls though. I don’t think we will all be swinging our iPhones to play Tiger Woods very soon, although that should be possible. I would hold out for a wrist strap on the iPhone 4GS.

Outside of gaming, the three-axis ability adds spatial awareness that is similar to what a laser-pointer mouse has. This is where the feature gets really hot for augmented reality apps; the three-axis ability turns your phone into a pointing device, one with a touch display screen. The level of interaction possible has just grown significantly. iPhone as a pointing device will make it much easier to digitally select items in the virtual display. Furthermore, with this functionality you can use the device as a pencil or brush to add annotations and drawings in a digital layer on top of reality. The possibilities of having such a familiar interface device moving into the off-screen world open some very wide and interesting doorways.

There isn’t a MichaelGardashSucks.com yet (or .org, .net, etc.), but there could be one day if I am popular or lucky enough. To find one day that people search for Mike Gardash sucks would be a great accomplishment. One of my favourite movie quotes sums up this sentiment perfectly:

Pirates of The Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Norrington: You are without doubt the worst pirate I’ve ever heard of.
Jack Sparrow: But you have heard of me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/quotes?qt0416643

How do I know if I suck?

Many of the big brands have many sucks pages, just try Googling  “Google Sucks” or  Binging “Microsoft sucks”. Any of your favourite brands might have sucks sites. Lots of products also do (iPad sucks is enjoying recent popularity, and Windows has been sucking for decades).

If you or your products suck enough, your sucks site might show up in Google’s predictive text, and people just looking for your brand will see that you suck. A fun way to test this is to Google something like “Apple is” and see what the predictive search tells you about your brand.

There are eight searches more popular than the first postive "Apple is awesome". But nine before "Apple is a fruit".

Another fun predictive search use is “Apple vs” or “iPad vs”. This lets you know who most people think your brand or product competes with. It more specifically answers the question “do I suck more than them?”

What should I do if I suck?

Check regularly to see if you suck. Set up a Google alert with your name, brand, or product. Use some social monitoring and online reputation management tools to see if people are talking about you.

When you find someone who thinks you suck, either by putting up a web page, posting on Facebook, tweeting on Twitter, or blogging, contact them. Say, “Hi. I’m Michael Gardash and you think I suck. I would like to understand why and see what I can do to stop sucking.” If you can connect directly with people and change their opinions, they might stop telling people you suck. They might even start telling people how cool you are.

Own the Michael Gardash Sucks search results

If you suck, try to dominate the search result for that phrase. Build your own sucks page and aim for the top search results. That way you control the content of what people see and can start addressing their concerns instead of letting others control the discussion. When your brand sucks (Apple sucks), direct searchers to your support page. When your product sucks (iPad sucks), direct searchers to an information or comparison page.

How to own the sucks search

1. Buy the domain, for example michaelgardashsucks.com.
2. Run PPC campaigns on the “<brand> sucks” search phrase.
3. Set up a clever page, article, or blog post about how you suck and optimize for higher organic search rankings.

Just like Jack Sparrow’s response to Norrington, what you need to keep in mind when someone searches for you and how much you suck is that they DO search for you. And that can be a good thing.

R4E96KGVMT9P

Traditional web design strategies agonize over this one page: tweak it, approve it, and publish it. Then they build sub-pages. The agony comes from a bookshelf mentality; the designer wants a flashy cover. Lucky for us, the “splash page” is (almost) a thing of the past, but we still see many well-agonized-over splashy tables of contents. Maybe a supermarket magazine rack is a better analogy. So maybe I am right, because my homepage is where the designer thinks it is.

That answer can’t be right though. My visitors will tell me that. They don’t visit my home page (well most of them don’t). Most of your website traffic comes to your website in three ways:

• From a search engine
• From a referring link
• Directly

The smallest portion will probably visit directly. These are people who have bookmarked your website or typed your URL into their browser. A healthy website will have a lot of search traffic (people who looked for something that your website appears to have the answer to) and referral traffic (people who were reading something else that said your website had good information). Web analytics expert Avinash Kaushik recognized this years ago:

As you perhaps already realize you have lost control of what the home page of your website is. Search engines decide what the home page of your website is. People search for you (or click through from a link on another site) and go directly deep into your site.
http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2007/12/web-analytics-demystified.html

Instead of one home page, we have multiple entry pages or landing pages. The paradigm has shifted from a linear publishing model to a centralized website model. I have multiple home pages. My web analytics tell me so.

If you are using web analytics on your website, that’s the answer to “where is my home page?” Your homepage is not even on your website. Most of your visitor’s first engagement with your brand is through search or a referring site. By extension, your home page is really at google.com, or a PPC ad, or on your LinkedIn profile, or your Facebook fan page, or a blog comment, or a YouTube video, or someone else’s tweet. You get the picture.

“Where is my homepage?” follows this evolution:

Linear > Centralized > Distributed

My online presence, the brand engagement of me, is not just on-site but off-site as well. This is going to be a scary discovery for some because at each step of that evolution, control is reduced. It moves from total authority with one entry and path, to a centralized voice, to an open community of contributors outside of editorial control. My home page could be www.michaelgardashsucks.com. That could be where searches and referrals for my brand go. How would I know?

We need off-site analytics just as much as we need on-site analytics. We have to give up the notion that our brands take place in safe centralized and controlled web presences. This is not new. There is a growing market of Online Reputation Management (ORM) tools available, such as Radian6, Jive Market Engagement, Social Mention, and Alterian’s SM2. These tools are great and are getting better at measuring off-site analytics, which is good, but I want to go a step further.

We need a tool that combines on-site and off-site analytics. It’s no longer a matter of centralized web presence versus distributed web presence. We have distributed presences. We just don’t have tools that make it easy to measure them and combine them. When we do, they will be very powerful. How so? I will show you.

Let’s turn this inside out and forget about my home page and think about you. What do companies know about you? Companies can look into analytics reports and see some level of behaviour. Companies use these reports so they can improve serving you. At first, you are a general persona that is put into a bucket with others who display similar behavior. At some point, you might become a customer or subscriber, giving up your identity for some service, product, or information. Now you are a person. Now the company can track what you do on-site and target messages directly to you based on your behavior. If you buy a laptop on-site, they might send you an offer for a new laptop case. Smart. What if you bought a laptop at another store and tweeted about your new purchase? They might send you an offer for a new laptop case. Scary?

It is a great cautionary fable: you cannot put a price on results, especially results that so publicly affect your image or reputation.

In marketing and technology, there are many versions of Nitro Kutz available online: low-cost alternatives to local professionals. NeedAnArticle.com, for example, actually sells $6 articles (well, they’re $5.52). It’s a tempting resource for content marketers to build up SEO content pages targeting long-tail keywords. You just need to consider whether you want the first impression that traffic to your site receives to be a page with a $6 haircut.