Author Topic: Would ugly sites still sell?  (Read 597 times)

rcjordan

  • I'm consulting the authorities on the subject
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8656
  • Debbie says...
    • View Profile
Would ugly sites still sell?
« 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?

gm66

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1162
    • View Profile
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2019, 01:08:27 PM »
Civilisation is a race between disaster and education ...

Rupert

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2446
  • George in a previous life.
    • View Profile
    • SuitsMen
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2019, 01:51:55 PM »
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 :)
... Make sure you live before you die.

rcjordan

  • I'm consulting the authorities on the subject
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8656
  • Debbie says...
    • View Profile
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2019, 02:37:46 PM »
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.

Rupert

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2446
  • George in a previous life.
    • View Profile
    • SuitsMen
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2019, 02:58:34 PM »
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?
... Make sure you live before you die.

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2019, 05:13:50 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 05:17:52 PM by ergophobe »

rcjordan

  • I'm consulting the authorities on the subject
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8656
  • Debbie says...
    • View Profile
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2019, 06:49:33 PM »
>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.



ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2019, 06:55:32 PM »
>> aircrete

Right. You're selling a solution. We're selling a fantasy.

Rupert

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2446
  • George in a previous life.
    • View Profile
    • SuitsMen
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2019, 09:41:56 AM »
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.
... Make sure you live before you die.

rcjordan

  • I'm consulting the authorities on the subject
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8656
  • Debbie says...
    • View Profile
Re: Would ugly sites still sell?
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2019, 01:11:26 PM »
>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.