Recommended reports
Selling Online: a How-to Guide for Small Businesses
Econsultancy’s Selling Online: a How-to Guide for Small Businesses has been produced specifically with smaller business in mind. This 100+ page document, written by e-commerce consultant Trevor Ginn, contains information about best-practice implementation and management of an online retail website. It is a must-read for any small business serious about establishing itself in the e-commerce environment.
The State of Digital Marketing in the Middle East and North Africa 2012
The State of Digital in MENA report, published by Econsultancy (and supported by ArabianBusiness.com), looks in detail at use of different traditional and online marketing channels in the Middle East and North Africa. The report also looks at how companies are using social media for marketing, how businesses are measuring marketing effectiveness and examines the barriers to digital marketing and e-commerce in the region.
Product Marketing at Google UK
05 March 2004 10:29am
It's widely acknowledged among the usability community that users don't read websites but scan, particularly on eCommerce sites. Most styleguides therefore recommend short copy.
I have a client that loves putting long paragraphs of copy on their site and I am constantly telling them to cut it, but it would be helpful to have some empirical evidence to back my recommendations.
I know there is user research that supports this but I can't find any now that I need it - any pointers?
Thanks,
Obi
Director of Product Development at Econsultancy
05 March 2004 10:56am
Hi Obi,
Jakob Nielsen might have put this together seven years ago but it is still valid: http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html
http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/
Cheers,
c.
On 10:29:48 5 March 2004 Obi Felten wrote:
>It's widely acknowledged among the usability community
>that users don't read websites but scan, particularly on
>eCommerce sites. Most styleguides therefore recommend
>short copy.
>
>I have a client that loves putting long paragraphs of copy
>on their site and I am constantly telling them to cut it,
>but it would be helpful to have some empirical evidence to
>back my recommendations.
>
>I know there is user research that supports this but I
>can't find any now that I need it - any pointers?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Obi
Product Marketing at Google UK
05 March 2004 11:38am
Thanks Chris - exactly what I was looking for. Should have guessed it was good old Jakob Nielsen. Obi
Digital Marketing Consultant, Trainer, Author and Speaker at SmartInsights.com
05 March 2004 13:51pm
I'm not saying scannability isn't key, Obi, but i think rules of thumb like 'less is more' are dangerous. I love this article by Jared Spool that knocks (based on testing) some of the usability myths (often originating from uability gurus such as Jakob Nielsen) such as the three click rule.
http://www.uie.com/articles/usability_myths/
and also
http://www.uie.com/articles/page_scrolling/
With the copy example you quote, the only way to be sure is to test long and short copy against the audience for that site i.e. Setup a test for a long versus short version.
With E-mail Marketing I recommend writing Long and Short at the same time i.e. The start of the msg has a succinct overview of the whole, but more details are there for those who want to read them - we are all different. I think the same applies on sites - people turn to the web for ** detailed information **. Short copy initially, but the details need to be there via a link or further down the page - and the Jared Spool article suggestst that people do scroll - yet another myth.
Dave Chaffey
============
Internet Marketing trainer, consultant and author
eResources and Books: www.marketing-online.co.uk
Product Marketing at Google UK
05 March 2004 14:23pm
Dave - thanks for the comment. I fully agree that the best thing would be to test different versions. Unfortunately they don't have the ability to do AB testing in their content management system, and I think copy is one aspect where small-scale user testing is actually not terribly revealing (as you point out, some people like to read more than others).
Hence I was looking for some pre-canned studies, I know that's not as good as the real thing.
My client has a ton of content on the site, what I am trying to do is to make the entry pages (home, landing) less busy and copy-heavy, and make key calls to action stand out more. Then there will be plenty of content for users to drill down to. I agree with you that drilling down is one of the things the web is good at, but that to me is precisely one of the reasons why I don't have to put all my content on the first page.
I still feel that most websites (particularly eCommerce) make their entry pages too busy, with too much of everything - copy, links, graphics... trying to show all they've got in one page. It's like a department store trying to cram all their categories into one shop window.
Obi
Director of Product Development at Econsultancy
05 March 2004 14:45pm
Hi Dave,
I agree with you in that generalisations are to be avoided, and you can normally find a range of scientific arguments to bruise so-called scientific facts, but some of the statements in that article are patently thin... such as the 'myth' about page download speed.
From the aricle: "You have undoubtedly heard that users give up because pages take too long to download. This is also a myth. Testing shows no correlation between page download time and users giving up. How does this myth continue to defy gravity?"
This isn't a myth! I regularly ditch sites because of poor page response times. There might be some argument now about the 8 second rule, but if anything, I'd say it has fallen as more and more people become 'web savvy', their expectations change and they want results right away. There are less people out there that don't know what to expect.
While page download speed is becoming less of an issue in the broadband age, most of the UK's 3m 'broadband' connections are about as broad as 56kbps X 2 - ie not very broad.
I'm sure you've seen the now-defunct Zona Research's work in this area - opportunity cost in the region of $25bn per year due to users lack of patience.
http://www.avoka.com/resources/keynote/Zona_Need_For_Speed.pdf
c.
On 13:51:32 5 March 2004 dave chaffey wrote:
>I'm not saying scannability isn't key, Obi, but i think
>rules of thumb like 'less is more' are dangerous. I love
>this article by Jared Spool that knocks (based on testing)
>some of the usability myths (often originating from
>uability gurus such as Jakob Nielsen) such as the three
>click rule.
>
>http://www.uie.com/articles/usability_myths/
>
>and also
>
>http://www.uie.com/articles/page_scrolling/
>
>With the copy example you quote, the only way to be sure
>is to test long and short copy against the audience for
>that site i.e. Setup a test for a long versus short
>version.
>
>With E-mail Marketing I recommend writing Long and Short
>at the same time i.e. The start of the msg has a succinct
>overview of the whole, but more details are there for
>those who want to read them - we are all different. I
>think the same applies on sites - people turn to the web
>for ** detailed information **. Short copy initially, but
>the details need to be there via a link or further down
>the page - and the Jared Spool article suggestst that
>people do scroll - yet another myth.
>
>Dave Chaffey
>============
>Internet Marketing trainer, consultant and author
>eResources and Books: www.marketing-online.co.uk
Digital Marketing Consultant, Trainer, Author and Speaker at SmartInsights.com
05 March 2004 14:50pm
Thanks Obi.
I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. You know your client's audience best so I accept your judgement.
I have briefly checked and there doesn't seem to be any accessible canned research other than that we referred to support our arguments.
While I was looking I came across this recent article by Bryan Eisenberg who specialises in recommendation on factors that increase conversion. He doesn't come down on one side or the other, but does emphasise the different behaviours and the need for ** sufficient ** copy. He also reminds us that we're writing for search engine algorithms as well...
http://www.clickz.com/experts/design/traffic/article.php/3312141
Dave Chaffey
============
Internet Marketing trainer, consultant and author
eResources and Books: www.marketing-online.co.uk
Digital Marketing Consultant, Trainer, Author and Speaker at SmartInsights.com
05 March 2004 14:57pm
Hi Thx for reminding me about Zona Chris - I'm with you on that one.
I don't actually agree with that point in Jared Spools article - it was the stuff further down such as the multiple clicks that I was interested in and the fact that a lot of people's actions is based on these myths that are often based on a single piece of limited research. I recall that Jakob Nielsens copy piece / scannability was based on a very long piece of text about US National Parks - not commercial site content!
Seems some new research is needed on this one.
Dave Chaffey
============
Internet Marketing trainer, consultant and author
eResources and Books: www.marketing-online.co.uk
On 14:45:36 5 March 2004 chrisl wrote:
>Hi Dave,
>
>I agree with you in that generalisations are to be
>avoided, and you can normally find a range of scientific
>arguments to bruise so-called scientific facts, but some
>of the statements in that article are patently thin...
>such as the 'myth' about page download speed.
>
>From the aricle: "You have undoubtedly heard that
>users give up because pages take too long to download.
>This is also a myth. Testing shows no correlation between
>page download time and users giving up. How does this myth
>continue to defy gravity?"
>
>This isn't a myth! I regularly ditch sites because of poor
>page response times. There might be some argument now
>about the 8 second rule, but if anything, I'd say it has
>fallen as more and more people become 'web savvy', their
>expectations change and they want results right away.
>There are less people out there that don't know what to
>expect.
>
>While page download speed is becoming less of an issue in
>the broadband age, most of the UK's 3m 'broadband'
>connections are about as broad as 56kbps X 2 - ie not very
>broad.
>
>I'm sure you've seen the now-defunct Zona Research's work
>in this area - opportunity cost in the region of $25bn per
>year due to users lack of patience.
>
>http://www.avoka.com/resources/keynote/Zona_Need_For_Speed-
>.pdf
>
>
>c.
>
>
>On 13:51:32 5 March 2004 dave chaffey wrote:
>>I'm not saying scannability isn't key, Obi, but i
>think
>>rules of thumb like 'less is more' are dangerous. I
>love
>>this article by Jared Spool that knocks (based on
>testing)
>>some of the usability myths (often originating from
>>uability gurus such as Jakob Nielsen) such as the
>three
>>click rule.
>>
>>http://www.uie.com/articles/usability_myths/
>>
>>and also
>>
>>http://www.uie.com/articles/page_scrolling/
>>
>>With the copy example you quote, the only way to be
>sure
>>is to test long and short copy against the audience
>for
>>that site i.e. Setup a test for a long versus short
>>version.
>>
>>With E-mail Marketing I recommend writing Long and
>Short
>>at the same time i.e. The start of the msg has a
>succinct
>>overview of the whole, but more details are there for
>>those who want to read them - we are all different. I
>>think the same applies on sites - people turn to the
>web
>>for ** detailed information **. Short copy initially,
>but
>>the details need to be there via a link or further
>down
>>the page - and the Jared Spool article suggestst that
>>people do scroll - yet another myth.
>>
>>Dave Chaffey
>>============
>>Internet Marketing trainer, consultant and author
>>eResources and Books: www.marketing-online.co.uk
CEO at Econsultancy
05 March 2004 15:42pm
All interesting stuff above. My twopenny's worth:
1. Download speeds.
It's worth noting the difference between perceived download speeds and actual download times. For example, if you measure download time as the time it takes for the *entire* page to download this is very different from the time it takes for the *content that the user is after* to download. The latter is more important.
Hence there is a strong argument for (fast loading) HTML text (rather than graphical) for key navigation and content items. Also it's probably not a good idea to have your entire web page in a single HTML table as nothing will then appear until the whole thing has downloaded.
Also I'd make the obvious point about user expectations. If it's content I'm expecting to take a while to appear (a high res. image or multimedia file) then I'll wait. Otherwise, I won't.
2. Long text vs. short
As a broad comment I'd say that during the information or product selection/search stage people tend to scan and want to move as fast as possible (i.e. short copy best, scannable etc.). At the point of very serious consideration / purchase they'll be more prepared to read the small (longer) print. I agree with Dave that a hybrid of "here's the short version but the details are down below if you want" is a good option.
3. "Persuasive" Design / Architecture
I'm interested that Dave mentions Bryan Eisenberg (co-founder and "chief persuasion officer" of Future Now - http://www.futurenowinc.com/) who champions 'conversion rate marketing'. What I like about this approach is:
a. Focus on content. How much time and money has been wasted agonising over creative details at the expense of the actual *content* of web sites..? The actual content has been, and continues to be, undervalued by many. Copy writers in ad agencies get paid a lot of money to write great copy. Why don't great web copy writers get the same? They are rarely even budgeted for. And yet they can make enormous differences to ROI.
b. Focus on user journey and experience. I'm very intrigued (and sold on) this notion of an interactive 'journey'. Interaction has a flow and a rhythm which can, to some degree, be guided. And it's not just web sites - it's mobile to web to call centre to shop to kiosk to direct mail... The real skill is being able to create interactive 'flows' that seamlessly and effortlessly guide customers through the relevant avenues to where they want to go - hopefully also where you want them to go.
The problem is that to do this well requires orchestrating a complex range of elements to create that natural-feeling flow for the customer. It requires doing that AND taking into account the contingent needs for search-engine friendly pages, the content management system, the web analytics and tracking elements and so on.
One small "test" I sometimes try out to see if a web site has this "flow" thinking (or perhaps 'persuasive design') is to see how many *body text* hyperlinks there are. Not fixed navigation or heading or product links but hypertext links within the flow of the copy. Like you might get in a forum post such as this. Or look at Future Now's website (http://www.futurenowinc.com/) - that's long copy but it has links in the body text.
Actually, suprisingly few sites have this form of navigation (and I know we're not whiter than whiter so can't cast too many stones) despite the fact that research shows it to be the most natural form of interactive navigation for users. It's where hypertext started. There are many reasons why it is difficult to do (we have 1,000s pages of content coming onto our site every day - how could we do all the interlinking manually?) but it does show how little thought is given to how pages actually inter-connect with each other to drive the interactive flow. The best most of us can do is have automated dynamic navigation like 'related links'.
I wonder whether after the dotcom days of the 1mb Flash intro animation were superceded by a vogue for the ascetiscism of the strictest useit.com (Nielsen) style usability guidelines, we're now moving in stage 3? 'Persuasive Design' which is both user-centric, usable, search engine friendly, content management friendly AND sells...? Sounds good.
Technical Director at Box UK
05 March 2004 19:59pm
Excellent points. Just to continue on these themes (with maybe a bit of a technical slant):
>1. Download speeds.
This is a good case for moving from table-heavy HTML, to CSS driven XHTML. In a recent re-design, we managed to reduce a client's front page from 40kb of 'structural' HTML (nested tables, etc.) to a total page size (including content) of 4kb of XHTML (+ CSS) - without changing the design.
For content heavy pages, also note that most browsers can accept 'compressed' output - if you've got a decent CMS running your site, set it to detect browser compatibility + compress (gzip) the html output where possible; again, this can reduce the total download size (and therefore speed) by about 700% (for text heavy pages).
>2. Long text vs. short
I'm not aware of any other research on this, but from looking at the top online retailers (and the amount they must spend on user testing), I'd definitely opt for the summary text linking to more detailed content.
>3. "Persuasive" Design / Architecture
We can but hope - although as Dave points out, we should always question the parables of self-appointed gurus - for example, Jakobs move from 'non-flash' to 'flash is acceptable because it's accessible now'... For those that use Flash accessibility features, you'll know that they were (at the time of his change of heart), extremely limited, and actually not that useful. That's changed a bit now, thankfully, in the latest release.
Ta,
Dan