Driving traffic vs. making the conversion
Posted in Web strategy on: Friday, February 27, 2009 by Paul Boag
Marketeers are obsessed with driving traffic to their sites. Web designers are interested only in nurturing those users until they complete a call to action. Who is right?
Apologises for doing this as a video. I was just having real trouble writing this as a blog post. I will try and get it transcribed as soon as possible.
Apologises too for the lack of lip sync. It would appear that vimeo has done something weird to my video. :(
All in all not my best blog post!
14 Comments
Comments are for the discussion of this post. If you have other questions / comments then post them to the forum or send me an email
Noticed that lip sync is cured if you click on the time bar. Needs repeating once or twice during the video.
Hi Paul,
Great post as per usual and a really interesting topic.
Certainly some of our clients at the moment are really wanting the conversions because conversions will usually mean cash or at least a solid lead to follow up.
Personally, I’m inclined to go for conversions but it does depend on the product or services being sold. Conversions from my point of view are much more measurable – from day 1, whereas the benefits from visits are harder to quantify. I also think I’d have a tough time telling a client to stop complaining about their lack of conversions when they’ve had thousands of visitors that appear to doing nothing.
For services and products where people like to browse (perhaps for unusual or high value purchases), take their time and make decisions after a prolonged period, visits obviously matter, as the sites they look at will become an authority or even a resource. Now how this translates to the ‘best’ objective – I’m not sure.
Amazon want conversions/sales – but equally they want to develop a relationship with their customers (or potential customers) so they will feel ’safe’ buying from them.
As a web designer selling the benefits of a website – conversions do it for me.
In some ways it is a bit of a misleading title. It is not a matter of choosing one or the other. It is about getting the right balance.
The problem is identifying what that balance is can be hard. Take for example the checkbox issue I covered. How can you tell quite how badly that will alienate users or indeed how big an affect those extra emails will have. It is also an ideological based decision. There is no solid right or wrong. Its frustrating.
In regards to your points about twitter:
I RT this post, but did I do it because you reminded me? Most likely.
A user clicks on so many links and blog posts throughout the day that ReTweeting becomes secondary. So if you have the extra characters why not include it? To a degree users want to be told what to do, because this makes the overall experience easier.
This will only work if you have already established a relationship and trust of some sort with the user.
Yes – there definately needs to be a balance as at somepoint, conversions will result from visits.
On the checkbox I think it should be empty – people will decide if they want future email and its not for me to decide for them.
Drop in an clear and obvious incentive to sign up, then I think thats more effective marketing because you’re encouraging visitors to make a more informed choice, rather than just pushing them along. They’ll want to receive that email and remember signing up for it when it arrives in the inbox.
The same goes for calls to action and Re-tweeting. I don’t see anything wrong with inviting it – people do need encouragement to act and if they want to – they’ll ignore it.
Superb post as usual. I always favour a balance – copy written for users not Google, checkboxes unchecked as default. But also tinkering on-site with the aspects that don’t hinder usability a great deal and doing all you can off-site to promote it.
I agree that it should be looked at on a case by case basis. Take the Money Saving Expert as an example (Martin Lewis). Shocking site and it gives me a headache. However, last time I checked there were 6000 users currently online in the forum.
Clearly he has a strong personal brand which is driving literally millions of new users to his site each month, but there is bound to be a good percentage of return visits despite the lack of usability.
Would a slick new design make a considerable difference to conversions – I am not too sure. Too slick and it may give the impression that he is quids in and users will become sceptical of his motives. No doubt this debate will rage on for the foreseeable. At least we are having it though.
Hi Paul,
I understand the point you are raising but in the examples given it almost seems like the ultimate goal of the businesses in question have/had been lost in favour of reaching the required goal. Of course if you are tasked with achieving a specific goal (e.g. increasing traffic, conversions or whatever) then you could assume a certain degree of success if you do achieve this. However I think this is where we as web designers really need to take some initiative and be a little more pro-active in terms of communicating with our clients about the consequences of the work we do, and how that may ultimately impact the business both long and short term (like in the examples you gave). Sometimes as designers there are an awful lot of business decisions that we make for the client, whether we realise it or not. Building a good relationship with the client and communicating well can only aid this.
Great vid – sorry about your troubles!
I occasionally RT but not that often – Should I actually be doing it more? I may consider it.
Nice to see you’re face again. I think that you should do a video every so often – it makes BW.com more interactive!
Take Care! xx
Great post as usual. I love the video rather than text, was so lively, interactive and much easier too :)
I can see why you are torn on this subject. I went back and forth a few times.
In order to answer your question take a look at the standard business structure:
Marketing –> Sales –> Customer Service
Driving traffic, usability, a clear call to action are all critical to successfully completing the SALES process. Gathering demographic information is NOT. It should take place in the Marketing or Customer Service phase. Because of this I would argue this ought to be an entirely separate call to action and should have completely separate incentives.
1. Driving Traffic – Brings the people to your website.
2. Design and Engaging content – Attracts people to your call to action.
3. Usability – Ensures your call to action is accessible and easy to complete.
Increased Traffic + Design + Usability = Increased Conversions
Demographics have nothing to do with it.
Example:
A petrol station near my work requires your ZIP code after swiping your credit card. My response is to go to the petrol station down the street to fill up. Less time standing outside in the freezing cold and less time wondering why they need my ZIP code. Asking me for demographics destroyed their sales process. :)
Should the check box be checked by default? NO. If I buy an item in a local shop, I don’t walk out with a leaflet by default, it’s my choice to pick it up or not. If the shop keeper sneaks it into my bag it’s both rude and an invasion of my privacy. I would tear it up and my opinion of the shop is likely to be tarnished. Why risk upsetting the user? If they want to receive the newsletter, they will check the box. What’s the benefit of automatically checking the box? More emails, however your newsletter is now reduced to spam with a 0.000008% success ratio. Is it really worth it in the long run?
The web makes it so easy for us to loose our common courtesy and respect for customers. We should be careful.
IMHO “Please re-tweet” is fine. You leave the user with a choice.
Thanks for the thought. Sorry for such a long post.
It can be tricky, and certainly not uncommon for two agencies to be jointly responsible. In these instances, it’s best to have a joint target looking at Cost Per Acquisition (either lead, sale or download), rather than traffic or conversion rate. It’s a marketeers job to increase sales by X with a marketing budget of Y. This translates very nicely to the website achieving a certain CPA. Traffic numbers and Conversion rates mean nothing in the board room when trying to explain where the budget went.
That way, if the SEO company sends lots of irrelevant traffic that has a low conversion rate, that could give the same CPA as paying for expensive quality leads, say via Cost Per Click, that will have a high conversion rate. The CPA is the same, and that’s what marketers should really be worrying about.
To the original point of driving traffic vs making the conversion, which is more important, well, their both equally important, the question is what is the most effective? Doubling traffic can, if via CPC can cost thousands per month. Increasing a poor website’s conversion rate from 2% to 4% is a one of cost – and you’ve achieved the same.
Great point on hindering the conversion rate for the sake of some additional information, this is where companies always go wrong, mainly on ‘contact us’ forms, rather than sales, as the user needs to give certain information away anyway. But asking me to fill in three separate address fields so that I can learn more about a product, will turn off most users.
Simply ask the client how much they consider this information worth. Then tell them how much it’s costing. ‘Mr Client, since we’ve forced users to give away their starsign and favourite Italian dish on the registration form, our leads have reduced by 50%. Given we’re spending thousands on marketing and CPC, each lead is now costing £40’. Then they can make the call on just how important that marketing information is.
As for retweeting, don’t really have a comment on that as I couldn’t help myself imagining it as a blog from Jonathan Ross on retreating, and then I couldn’t concentrate. :)
In my own experience the conversion vs marketing issue has always been a grey (and sticky) issue. As a designer I ‘m reluctant about “handing my design over” to an outside marketing agency (SEO) for the very reason you mentioned Paul: We get the blame when the site ultimately fails due to over-aggressive SEO changes, not to mention “design degradation”!. It’s a contentious issue for sure.
This article raises a common issue faced in many if not all organisations, namely how various people/functions either internal or external can work together to solve a problem. One solution to this problem which is gaining attention of the world of management is the concept of “design thinking”. Although there appears to be no single definition of this concept the D.School at Stanford University is a leading proponent and the link below directs to a page which gives their understanding of this concept. If nothing else “design thinking” raises the profile of design as a strategic discipline within the world of commerce.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/big_picture/design_thinking.html
I must admit, after working in internet marketing for around 5 years for a leading European affiliate and search agency/supplier, i’m not entirely sure I agree with the opening gambit of:
“Marketeers are obsessed with driving traffic to their sites.”
Marketeers are obsessed with one thing however, and that is driving quality traffic to a site.
As Adam Smith states above, 99% of marketeers will be given a set of targets. To deliver a certain number of sales (or revenue) from a set budget. This primarily leads to a ROI, COS or CPA target. If I was to send £100k or PPC traffic to a clients site in a month, and achieve a less than acceptable conversion rate, my client would soon be recruiting a new agency.
It is also common to be measuring a number of different actions. E.G. sale, registration, brochure request etc. Most tracking systems allow you to create a number of actions all of which can be measured for performance. In terms of web design, the software we produce is just about to launch a landing page optimisation suite to measure the conversion rate from the traffic dropped on a site and provide insight into the best page configuration for a set of KWs. All very interesting.