Hey {{first_name}}
Want to know one thing that boils my beans?
It’s when I hear people say A/B testing is a waste of time.
The basic idea behind A/B testing is older than the internet itself.
Direct-response advertisers have been doing it for years.
Big newspapers often ran two or more printing presses at the same time.
Advert A went on one press.
Advert B went on another.
The finished papers were mixed together, so you and your neighbour got different ads.
Each advert had its own unique code or coupon.
So when they were mailed in or quoted on a call the company could count which one was used the most.
Giving them the winner for that test.
Quick one...
At 4pm UK time today, Adam is live with Intelligems showing how we use PECTI to decide which CRO ideas should get built and tested first.
Proof. Ease. Cost. Time. Impact.
Basically: which idea deserves the traffic?
It starts at 4pm UK today.
Digital A/B testing has made this a hell of a lot easier, both to run tests and measure the results.
But unfortunately, that ease includes bad ones.
A lot of brands try test too much.
They test a new PDP version with:
a different headline;
a new image;
shorter copy;
three extra icons;
a sticky button;
and a nicer shade of green.
All at the same time.
But then the original still wins.
Balls…
Why didn’t that work?
Well, they have no idea.
They have spent traffic, design time, and dev time learning that the new page lost, but not which of the six changes hurt it.
This is where changing just one word can be more valuable than changing half the page.
If “Save” beats “Discount” or visa versa in a properly run test, you have not discovered a magic word for the internet.
You have learnt how YOUR customers responded to that wording, on that page.
If you want to learn regardless of win or lose, change one thing.
Chat soon,
Peter
P.S. If you find this content helpful, add Blend to your Google preferred sources by clicking here.
|
|
||||
|
|||||
