Comments on: Landing Page Testing: Testing for Impact Not Variations https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/ Professional Speakers, Best Selling Authors, Online Marketing Pioneers Thu, 03 Oct 2024 18:37:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9 By: @brandrsn https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-31690 Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:52:47 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-31690 Thanks Bryan. I'll let you know how I get on…

]]>
By: BryanGroks https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-31687 Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:37:16 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-31687 In reply to @brandrsn.

You can certainly test one process against the other. However, don\’t remove fields in one versus the other, don\’t relabel them, don\’t re-order them, don\’t add or remove confidence building materials. If you remove a progress indicator you need to run another variation with a one step progress indicator. Another words make sure you have isolated and understand the variables you are testing.

]]>
By: @brandrsn https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-31678 Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:43:38 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-31678 Nice article Bryan. Though what if you want to test one 'type of process' against another, rather than two single pages? For example, a one-page, accordion-type registration form versus a two-page registration form.

From your post, I'd guess you would suggest only testing one 'type' of registration process against another (leaving the individual on-page elements of both variations identical, for now). Would that be correct?

]]>
By: thegrok https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-29965 Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:06:47 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-29965 In reply to Tim Duke.

Even if it was just an A/B test then they should have tested the 3 variables not the dozen I had listed. Not all variables are equal.

]]>
By: Tim Duke https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-29538 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:25:26 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-29538 You’re assuming this company wasn’t doing a simple A/B test. They might have such low traffic that running a full MVT test would take 108 days… But instead, they knew some of the core issues at hand, and threw in a few best practices to make things even more clear (arrows, button color, better UVP, etc).

]]>
By: Linda https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-28146 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:23:42 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-28146 It took me a while to get back to this but I’m glad I did. While I got many of the variables, I did miss a few. And I got the basic concepts as to the first (main) things to focus on as well. But it is great to have another set of eyes looking at a scenario for me! Post more of these case study exercises. It’s very interesting and helpful!

]]>
By: Bryan e Jeffrey Eisenberg - Landing page test: testare l’impatto, non le variazioni - ideawebitalia https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-28007 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 04:37:51 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-28007 […] Landing Page Testing: Testing for Impact Not Variations 3 giugno 2011 […]

]]>
By: John Hyde in Nelson NZ https://www.bryaneisenberg.com/landing-page-testing-testing-for-impact-not-variations/#comment-27740 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 21:39:28 +0000 http://www.bryaneisenberg.com/?p=1096#comment-27740 They are sweating the small stuff.

I would go really big and have a page that clearly spells out who the service is for, what the benefits are, and clearly explains the next move and how it will work.

]]>