Comments on: Driving traffic vs. making the conversion

By: Chrissanne

Chrissanne — Mon, 10 May 2010 03:08:52 +0000

The fact of the matter is: You can't please everyone all the time. Split Test, Survey, get feedback. The visitor is not thinking this hard about these topics. We tend to over analyze. As long as we still take some action, we are much better off than if we sit and stew over the "right" way to do something. The comment from Paul is the most relevant - Find Balance. Without Traffic, no conversions. If the offer is compelling enough, the shopping cart, form, etc will not be enough to deter the visitor from completing the call to action. But again, you must get them there in the first place!

By: Justin Jabara

Justin Jabara — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:59:07 +0000

Paul, I know that I am a little bit late to the discussion, but I am deciding this issue currently. I would like to default the check box for my customer contact / quote / order form. I think that many customers skip over this without considering the newsletter. I know from ordering product from other sites that the box has been defaulted without being in sight at all. I do skim the e-mails for relevant information. If they are of no use after a few attempts, I just unsubscribe. I like the topic!

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.

By: Simon Cooper

Simon Cooper — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:39:52 +0000

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.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:02:59 +0000

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

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:19:20 +0000

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.

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:34:25 +0000

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. :)

By: Paul Ciccone

Paul Ciccone — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:23:51 +0000

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.

By: Tejas

Tejas — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:12:32 +0000

Great post as usual. I love the video rather than text, was so lively, interactive and much easier too :)

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:07:20 +0000

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

By: Dave Ellis

Dave Ellis — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:51:36 +0000

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.