Th3 Core
Why We Are Here => Web Development => Topic started by: rcjordan on November 25, 2019, 12:56:28 PM
-
Or has the buying public become so accustomed to eye-candy filled bloatware that they'd reject it?
-
http://ugly.com/
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
mines ugly... not had a facelift in YEARS... sales are going up again. So survey of 1 says 100% yes :)
-
Recall that ALL the sites I frequent are ripped to an ugly state for utility & speed. But Woz brought it to mind again. As it happens, I've been researching a type of concrete construction and the serps are dominated by 3 sites. One is professional, but plain. The other two are primarily driven by horrifically produced youtube videos (think children and pets walking in & out). These last two are selling via Etsy and Amz aff stores.
-
I do think it is a beholder thing then. If I understand you right.
The two different styles will appeal to different people. The biggest difference in speed is still I think images... and some products need good images, the better the image the better the conversion rate.
That said, too much honestly then kills conversions (some of my products do that) an airbrushed version is better.
So yes, ugly can still sell. But I will depend on the customer and the product as to what that means.
What are the sites you are looking at?
-
I can't speak to that directly, but we did an A/B test with paid search traffic a year or two ago.
I was sure that a simpler, faster-loading home page would do better than a complex rich home page. So we drove paid search traffic to two versions.
The complex home page has *multiple* carousels, a social media "wall" that pulls in recent FB and IG posts, scrolls for screen after screen. The top carousel takes forever to show an image because first, the page has to load the script loader (require.js), then the script loader requests the scripts (JQuery, JQuery plugins, the carousel JS). Meanwhile, all the crap injected from GTM jumps the queue and loads all manner of tracking crap that competes with the script loader. Then the slider script lazy loads the images. No critical path rendering optimization. It's a MONSTER.
The pared-down page stripped out all of that. Static images, no carousel, no social wall, nothing above the fold that requires loading a script (menus require scripts to function, but not to display the top level), much shorter, much quicker both perceptive load and effective load. Should convert way better.
Anyway, I was proved wrong. The simpler page converted slightly worse than the monster.
If we had more traffic, the next step would be multivariate analysis, because clearly it wasn't the slower load times that lifted conversion. But which bell or whistle was it? Was it different for everyone? I don't know that. All I know is that the massive, complex, image-filled, script-heavy page out-converted my simpler test page.
-
>which
kw is 'aircrete'
Search youtube on 'Aircrete Harry' that's the one cobbled together with youtube-amazon-etsy.
Then search youtube on 'Honey do carpenter shop' --while his used to be a youtube jumble, he's trying to iron out the wrinkles and his site is evolving. See honeydocarpentershop .com
The 'pro' site is AirCrete - Domegaia
https://www.domegaia.com/aircrete.html
>simpler page converted slightly worse than the monster
Debbie says that those who only know the current slick, 4-color-glossy web now have an expectation that all sites be that way.
> depend on the customer and the product
Right. Concrete-related products would be a good example of a product that could get by with a rough site. I bought from Aircrete Harry, btw.
-
>> aircrete
Right. You're selling a solution. We're selling a fantasy.
-
I am too busy learning about aircrete now :)
Nothing much in the UK... its all in ready made blocks.. I wonder if this is an opportunity.
Are you building a dome? Or a pier?
I think Ergo is right. Solution/fantasy.
-
>aircrete
It has supposedly been around for a long time but fell into obscurity in the 1930s. It was used as a fire retardant & insulation material. 30 years ago, I learned about some fellows out in Arizona who were making papercrete and started casually following that. Eventually aircrete crossed the path into my research as related. Its combination of light weight & being waterproof is really what piques my interest.
>pier
I currently use a lot of salt-treated lumber in my projects. Environmental concerns have forced a change in the formulation and it is getting harder and harder to buy lumber that will withstand outdoor exposure. In some water-contact applications, its light weight is problematic. AI couldn't sink a piling with high buoyancy, for instance. But for pier decking or bulkhead cat walks, it might work.
> opportunity.
It has a lot of potential for crafts and garden projects. Cost of entry, even for larger volume production is cheap-ish. I'll spend $500 for the high-volume foam generator and the double-paddle mixer for speedier production, but I cobble together my own set-up for far less --probably $200.
>project
200'/60m x 32"/1m path to the pier with cobblestone-like imprints. My big, blue-sky(wishful) project is to put a slab in the crawlspace under my house.
-
I think a site can be ugly and still sell as long as the more important factors are there (some of which have been touched on here already)
1. Speed and ease of customer journey
2. trust - if the site looks trustworthy, phone numbers, reviews, etc people will buy even if ugly.
3. Target market, product and competition
4. Quality of product images
However, I think a better looking site with more conversion points that specifically targets your market will sell better in most circumstances, therefore it is all relative to your customer and competition.
(edited as I forgot this was public)
-
"Plain" or "simple" don't necessarily mean "ugly".
-
Aircrete Harry is the worst videographer on the planet. His sales site(s) are a hodgepodge of Youtube, Etsy, and an Amz aff store. As a whole, his internet presence should be rated as -what's the word- horrific. Yet I chose to buy from him (total = $600) because he comes off as sincere and decidedly UNpolished in his marketing pitch.
-
>> worst videographer on the planet
I watched one of the videos and there's no way I'd call him that.
It was unpolished in some ways, but it had the major virtue of being informative. It was well enough edited to make good use of my time watching it.
-
Well, it does depend on many factors, including what the prospect is looking to buy. These days my interest is mainly information, articles/research papers and the likes, and those sites do tend to be somewhat toned down, or plain and simple as Bucky mentions. It also depends on the potential market, for example, young bells and whistles type people are after exactly that. So, can ugly sites still sell? - yep, to the right market.
But then, I'm also seeing and uptake in the production of sites geared towards tablets and the mobile surfer, more so that in the past, and when I end up on one of those sites it annoys the begeezes out of me. I must admit, I am still influenced by the Steve Krug book - "Don't Make Me Think!"
On another note,
>>ripped to an ugly state for utility & speed.
(Wouldst that my torso were such ...)
-
"Plain" or "simple" don't necessarily mean "ugly".
No, they don't. A great designer can create a simple, but beautiful site and in the example I was thinking of, it is more simple vs elaborate rather that beautiful vs ugly. So in that case, I would say the site with all kinds of sh## all over the page, much of which is beautiful, outsold the site with a smaller and (I thought) best of the beautiful. And that didn't work. But you're right, it was more a light/heavy comparison than a beautiful/ugly comparison.
-
Elegant products sold on a site that's anything but:
https://seawear.com/
-
Wow that looks like something I autogenned about a decade ago.
-
I agree "ugly site" sells. I'm making a killing with my live cryptocurrency price check site and it's ugly asf. LOL. Craigslist is another example of ugly site that sells.