Every once in a while we like to test our audience’s marketing intuition on the MarketingExperiments blog. And we like to sweeten the pot a little bit if we can with a nice prize for three marketers with an uncanny sense for what works. We do this by asking you to predict the outcome of a recent experiment from our lab.
What’s at stake this time?
For starters…your reputation. 🙂
Kidding aside though, if you can correctly predict which copy treatment received the best conversion rate, we’ll not only feature you on our blog tomorrow as a marketing wizard, but the three most intuitive commenters (in our opinion) will receive a free copy of Inbound Marketing, by HubSpot founders Brian Halligan and Dharmesh Shah. HubSpot is providing educational funding for today’s web clinic at 4 p.m. EDT, Copywriting on Tight Deadlines: How ordinary marketers are achieving 200% gains with a step-by-step framework, and was kind enough to provide some books to give away in this post. All you need to do to enter is leave a comment stating:
- Which treatment you think won
- Why you think that
So, here we go…
Experiment: Background and Design
For this experiment, we were working with a large Canadian financial institution offering a special banking package for new immigrants to Canada. To obtain this offer, visitors were led offline to a local branch.
The goal of the experiment was to increase the amount of branch locator starts.
However, there was a bit of a problem. We couldn’t really change the design of the page, all we could change was the copy itself and a bit of the functionality.
With that in mind, we set up an A/B multifactor split test that featured the two landing pages seen below:
This original landing page was broken into two steps. In the first step, the user was basically given all of the details about the banking offer.
An interactive tab menu allowed visitors to choose and read about whatever offer benefit or feature most interested them.
The CTA states “Get Started Now” and leads to another page that will inform them how to obtain this offer.
This treatment combined only the most pertinent information contained on the two pages into one landing page.
Which landing page generated a higher conversion rate?
These are two different approaches to writing copy and one of them out-performed the other by about 200%. Which do you think generated more branch locator starts? Why?
- Landing Page Treatment A
- Landing Page Treatment B
Tell us in the comments for a chance to win Inbound Marketing, courtesy of HubSpot.
UPDATE: The Results
At the time of this update, version B was winning with 65% of the votes and version A losing with 35% of the votes. This is a fairly momentous occasion because I think it’s the first time in any of these blog posts that you guys have guessed right!
The winner of the actual test was version B.
It generated a 200% higher conversion rate than version A. Here are the results:
So what was it that made this test so successful? Well I’ll let some of the most intuitive commenters explain it:
The second, hands down. It is simple and direct, offering the user something of value FREE–followed straight on by a link helping me LOCATE it.
Treatment B gets to the point, gives the all the information they need to know in order to proceed and immediately addresses the three most important questions: Where am I? What can I do here? Why should I do it?
Treatment B for:
- the unique and more visible CTA
- straight to the point in the benefits
- the idea here is to get a lead after all : the rest will be closed in a branch.
Thank you Don, Susan, and Simon for your comments. You’ve won yourselves a copy of HubSpot’s Inbound Marketing book (you’ll be hearing from us shortly). And thank you to everyone who answered. You all make our job a lot easier! Make sure you read the comments and pay special attention to the marketers who got it right: