MarketingSherpa recently published a case study about a software company, Business Objects, that wanted to split-test its landing pages in an effort to increase conversion rates. Only problem was… it couldn’t test everything. A number of corporate and branding guidelines meant that a lot of the page and its components were off-limits.

I can relate to this because just a couple of months ago I started working with a large corporate to do the very same thing. While the company had been spending many thousands of dollars per month on both pay-per-click (PPC) and display advertising ($20,000 to $60,000 on PPC alone) it had never consistently directed such paid traffic to dedicated landing pages (it used regular internal website pages instead). And it had certainly never split-test landing pages.

Consequently, I was part of an effort to make dedicated landing pages the norm and to start split-testing alternative pages. As with Business Objects, a number of elements just couldn’t be changed for the purposes of testing. But, fortunately for us, the existing pages to which our search engine marketing (SEM) traffic was directed were so poor that it wouldn’t take much to make substantial improvements!

In fact, the first new landing page we implemented resulted in a 70 percent increase in conversions. Yes, 70 PERCENT. We used a slick, but simple new layout, ripped out all the competing “call to action” and other navigation links, and made the desired call to action much more prominent. And, trust me, we are only at the start of making radical improvements to the company’s paid search results.

Meanwhile, the Business Objects case study is instructive for clarifying three key elements that should be varied and tested where, for whatever reason - whether it’s corporate constraints or your own time constraints - you just can’t test everything:

1. Value proposition or offer.
2. Clarity of the presentation i.e. the layout and content of the headline, body copy, call to action, etc.
3. Distractions on the page e.g. navigation links, competing links, etc.

In Business Objects’ case, one of its test pages included using a much stronger call to action, which the company believes significantly contributed to its 32.5 percent increase in conversions. Moreover, by split-testing and identifying and implementing a superior approach (i.e. the more highly converting landing page) the company was also able to dramatically increase its return on investment (ROI) - by 154 percent.

This brings me to another key point about testing and improving landing pages - it reduces your cost per customer acquisition. In other words, you don’t have to pay as much on SEM to acquire a customer.

All in all, it’s certainly worth using dedicated landing pages (not just one of your usual internal website pages) and testing alternative landing pages to increase conversions, reduce your customer acquisition cost and increase your ROI. If, however, you’re limited as to what you can test, consider just focusing on the offer, the presentation of the offer, and getting rid of distractions (such as unnecessary links) on the landing page.

Source: MarketingSherpa, “Landing Page Site Redesign Passes Test: Conversions Lift 32.5%; ROI at 154%”, MarketingSherpa, September 10, 2008

Software companies are renown for pre-releasing software - known as beta-testing - and, indeed, officially releasing incomplete (buggy) software.

Back in the 1990s it was a running joke (and probably still is) that if Microsoft launched cars like it launched software… there would be accidents galore due to so many faulty cars on the road.

But the point is: Microsoft wasn’t releasing cars. It was releasing software. And, for most home and business users, a bug in Windows or Internet Explorer wouldn’t cause serious or fatal injury.

Also, software is arguably much more complex than an automobile engine - it’s almost inevitable that a program will contain a few mistakes here and there, given the millions of lines of code that goes into a typical program. If, despite the best of intentions, it’s possible for a few typos to slip through the editing process used for a book or report or article… it’s certainly possible for a few typos to slip through the testing of software code.

That’s not to say that software companies intend to, or should, release buggy programs or that software bugs can’t be disastrous - just ask anyone who’s been hacked because of a software security flaw. It’s just that despite all the internal testing, alpha testing and beta testing that software companies typically go through, they are still almost bound to release imperfect software.

That being the case, they aren’t about to delay launching their products even further to ensure everything is perfect, when (a) further testing may not uncover further bugs, and (b) real world usage IS likely to reveal further bugs.

Thus, Microsoft and just about every respectable software company tends to release imperfect software which it then improves by sending customers updates, patches and fixes.

Now, here’s why that’s a smart approach: when it comes to things that are NOT life or death: speed trumps perfection.

It’s better to get something out and keep on improving it than to wait for everything to be absolutely perfect first. It’s better for morale, and it’s also better for uncovering problems that may only become apparent when real customers buy and use the given software product.

I like the way Google puts it. In his blog post announcing Google Chrome on Monday, Sundar Pichai said that Google’s engineers have a saying, “launch early and iterate”.

In fact, I like this philosophy so much… I’m STEALING it. And I recommend you do too. (Presuming, of course, that not doing so won’t hurt anyone!)

Source: Sundar Pichai, “A Fresh Take On The Browser”, Official Google Blog, September 1, 2008

The U.S. real estate marketing may not be “hot”… but that’s all the more reason for real estate agents to not only get online, but invest more in their online presence.

In its June 2008 survey of real estate agents, real estate software company VHT found that a quarter of agents spent $250 to $500 on listing a property online, one-fifth spent $500 to $1,000, and another quarter spent $1,000 or more per listing. Nearly 20 percent said their level of spending depended on the property. The most popular sites used by agents were Realtor.com, Craigslist and Google.

VHT also found that the more experienced real estate agents were more likely to market their properties online. In an industry where real estate agents “eat what they kill” - and if they don’t “kill” they don’t survive in the business - it’s telling that the industry veterans are the ones who are investing more on the web. Could it be that the better agents (i.e. the ones staying in the game and making money) know a good thing when they see it?

Meanwhile, more and more real estate buyers are actively using the Internet to find homes. More than half of the U.S. Internet users surveyed by VHT said they had taken virtual tours of houses, apartments or neighborhoods online. Over 50 percent of users also used the Internet to research the community quality of life and to search the websites of real estate companies and agents.

Here at Kikabink, we have worked on several projects with real estate agents, investors and others in the real estate industry. One of our clients is a real estate company, based in Melbourne, Australia.

Although the market here has softened, it’s still fairly strong. Australian real estate firms generally handle both property sales and property management/rentals. In both cases, real estate marketing has evolved to the point where listing a property (for sale or rental) on one of the popular listing sites such as realestate.com.au or domain.com.au is NON-debatable… whereas advertising in the local newspaper – previously a mainstay of real estate advertising - IS debatable. In general, the only reason our client lists properties in the local newspaper - or even has “for sale” or “for lease” signs outside homes - is to attract home SELLERS, not buyers.

All our research indicates that buyers are no longer beginning the process of finding a home by personally visiting a lot of agents or driving around neighborhoods. On the contrary, their first port of call is the Internet, where they are visiting real estate and community websites to see what homes are available, and to find out about the shops, schools, hospitals, public transport and other amenities in the relevant area. Only after doing all that are they contacting agents and visiting homes. I can only imagine that, if and when the property market dampens further here in Australia, the Internet will become even more critical as a marketing tool for real estate agents.

What does this mean for Internet marketers? It means that providing Internet marketing products and services to real estate agents is a hot niche! Yes, many have been doing this for years… but think about the local agents in YOUR area. Are they using the Internet to its true potential? Heck, are they using direct response marketing to its true potential? Trust me, there’s money to be made in helping real estate agents survive - and thrive - by arming them with direct response Internet marketing strategies.

Source: eMarketer, “Real Estate Agents and Buyers Online”, July 1, 2008