Location vs. Sales Points Homepage Test - WhichTestWon

Results for: Which Homepage Generated More Revenue for this Australian Ecommerce Site: Search by Location vs. Sales & Benefits Copy?

Winning Version



Reader Guesses:

Loading ... Loading ...

WhichTestWon's Analysis: (Click back to see versions A & B)

Version A, with a search by location map, generated 27.9% higher revenues.

HP Group (see agency profile) conducted this A/B test on Total Experience’s homepage using Google Website Optimizer (see tech profile). Total Experience sells “experience gifts,” such as skydiving and race car driving, to consumers in Australia. The test results were statistically conclusive at 90% confidence.

Versions A & B were identical except for the design of the middle column below the “Hot offers… on driving experiences” banner. The testing team wondered whether adding a clickable map to help visitors find gifts in their area (Version A) would convert better or worse than lots of sales and benefits copy (Version B).

We thought this was an awesome example of how usability can trump marketing. So often we see ecommerce sites that bombard visitors with benefits, offers and sales copy. And those things, though important, sometimes aren’t as important as making sure visitors can find what they are looking for on your homepage as quickly as possible.

> Tweet that you ‘Got it Right’ here.

> Tweet that you ‘Got it Wrong’ here.


46 Comments: Post a comment

Yeah! I guessed correctly. I’ve seen other tests where maps won … but a key seems to be you need a mixture of marketing and map for best results. Many sites just shove the map there and force you to clickthrough to see any offers, which is annoying because the map is then more of a barrier instead of a useful tool. I think this combo approach is best.

glad to have got this right too.

Strangely – I clicked through the link to the site afterward to see if they’d cleaned up the map at all &… they’ve removed it. Guess they ran another test & something else won!

I think that the map, in a blink of an eye, shows quite efficiently who this is about/for. And it’s proven that, the more targeted and congruent the message is with its audience, the greater the response.

I think a significant factor here is the nature of the items being promoted and the fact that the market is an extremely large country. Whether this kind of ‘experience day’ gift is available within reach of the potential recipient is an absolutely make or break piece of information.

The design uses the map in a way that furthers the thought of the prospect.
If I wanted to buy someone this type of gift, ‘where’ would definitely be something on my mind.
The map pulled me in to the funnel.

I think maps that show where you have office buildings are pointless, but when you’re trying to figure out if there’s a location near you, it makes it quick and easy. Two weeks in a row! I’m on a roll!

In the context of this site, the map IS a benefit statement – and perhaps the most important one. What do you have to offer where I live? Until I know that, all the other benefit and sales copy is irrelevant.

I guessed the wrong one. Actually, I am still trying to figure out how to get my visitors to my website to realize that they can hear audio samples of every Bible online but I have not figured out a good way to do that?

I suppose from the type of products on offer, locality was important because people need to get somewhere.

Got it. Audrey said it:

“when you’re trying to figure out if there’s a location near you, it makes it quick and easy.”

Big shiny map for people with big courage. Clicky clicky.

The map was effective for all the reasons above, but also Version A just felt cleaner. B was cluttered with too much information and imagery.

Usability trumps marketing, most all of the time.

I was initially drawn to the benefits/copy version. However, if you are on this page to purchase an adventure as a gift for someone, you probably don’t want to make them travel afar to enjoy it!

Interactive wen sites, direct mail pieces, print ads, etc. will out-perform static ones almost every time. We all like to be engaged, and clicking and tearing and opening and sticking and pasting with our hands and fingers is very engaging!

I got it wrong but glad i found that out 🙂

The map is screaming, “CLICK ME CLICK ME CLICK ME” vs. read read read. No contest!!

Seems like nearly everyone got this one right. The success of A supports my belief that the message has to LOOK simple to the reader, and not make it look like work to find the information. Busy, busy world.

I thought A also made it clearer what exactly it was they were selling, with the copy “Find experiences in your location” being what finally let me know what business they were in amongst the clutter. And the map visually drew me to that line of copy.

I missed badly on this one. I think my streak was up to a dozen straight correct. The map makes sense in hindsight but at the time I liked the added information and imagery that made the site look inviting

Hi –

Why are we assuming that the Map itself was the deciding factor? Design A, was also cleaner, and offered less confusing series and number of navigation choices. I suggest that it could be that more people were driven through to conversion by the “map” version, not because of the map, but because the links at top became clearer and more direct.

The answer to this would be in analysis of how many of the increased conversions came via map links, and how many simply increased via the top gift links when the map version page was shown.

– Scott

Interesting that “How site visitors voted” is split 50/50. Is that correct? Seems like “A” should be getting the majority of votes.

I thought this was an easy one. It proves no matter the market, people are always tuned in to WIIFM, also known as the “What’s In It For Me” channel.

The map clearly allows the site visitor to get to their favorite station, WIIFM.

Hello –

Do we know that the resulting sales uptick came from clicks to the map, or because more visitors chose to follow top links and convert?

– Scott

Was able to pick the winner when I applied the “local local” rule — the closer to you, the more important.

I think this won for two reasons: One, interactivity is fun and intriguging, and more importantly, usability is so uber important and often overlooked. Don’t just sell, sell, sell: give people what they want and need – otherwise, they’ll look for it elsewhere and forget all about you.

I also felt the B version was too cluttered. The value propositions weren’t sock knocking, so I guessed A would convert better. (Not sure if that was the true reason why it did, but you can’t argue with lift!)

The map makes it really easy for visitors to engage right away and refine what they are looking for. In version b it takes much more thought and evaluation to decide what to do next.

@Scott Frangos

Thanks for the question. Unfortunately we don’t know which clicks resulted in a sale, but we agree that would be great data to include.

Natalie Tomasso
Senior Reporter

Hi Natalie & Colleagues –

As I read what you wrote (“Thanks for the question. Unfortunately we don’t know which clicks resulted in a sale, but we agree that would be great data to include”), this means that we cannot know if the map itself and clicks on the map are where the new sales came from…right? And that means that it could just be that the inclusion of the map caused more to click through on top links ABOVE the map and make conversions.

– Scott

I loved the map, wanted to click on it right away – and apparently, so did a whole lot of the other visitors.
Easy, this one. But sometimes, you guys really drive me crazy with results I just didn’t see coming.

I am glad you explained what they were selling, I could not tell from either ad. Maybe the 257.9% lift was a total of $2.00?

OOPS. Correction…. I am glad you explained what they were selling, I could not tell from either ad. Maybe the 27.9% lift was a total of $2.00?

I got this one wrong, because B seemed to say we’ll help make it easier for you/here’s all you have to do. I guess a piece missing for me was who/where most of the customers are. If you’re in Australia, location makes sense.

I chose “A” because I figured it would narrow my options immediately and limit the amount of irrelevant information I had to scroll through. I wish more sites offered this very easy “elimination of options”.

Version ‘B’ is actually NOT benefits oriented – it’s process oriented. Version ‘A’ is actually MORE about benefits because even if you never click through, it immediately implies what you get: locally relevant events.

Yes! Got it right. Experiences are no use if they’re not available near you. Usability trumps benefits in this case.

What an excellent test. My eyes were immediately drawn to A, so I wanted surprised that it generated more revenue.

I feel like a lot of people are missing the obvious point.

As someone who lived in Australia for a year this was a no brainer. It’s a huge country and where something is located is possibly the key deciding factor in purchasing.

The map allows people to quickly narrow down to the opportunities available in their area rather than the marketing links which are far more likely to lead to “dead ends” when a customer discovers the activity is located too far away.

Steffen Zeidler

I always like those maps for offers that are dependant on a position. It’s really frustrating to find the number one experience and then get the information that it’s only available on the other side of the country in the last step of the check-out.

I liked the map, too, but thought it a bit plain. Could have been enhanced with tiny thumbnails giving an idea of the types of experiences? Or perhaps $/$$/$$$ to make it easy to search on level of expense?

Wonderful feedback thank you all. The range of interpretations is fantastic. I wish I could claim to have considered all of these in advance of running the test!

@Scott Frangos
@Natalie Tomasso
With the help of Click Tale and GA I can confirm that the uplift was as a result of clicks on the map.

@Tim Leighton Boyce
@Neal Amsden
I really like with your conclusions. Whether the location is within reach is key – especially in a huge country like Australia. Like @Jay touches upon: let’s not try and sell something they’re not interested in let’s give them what they want as quickly as we can!

@Gamepuck we’re talking $13-14,000 AUD per month uplift.

@Audio Bible – Get in touch!

Great work, HP Group. No one is going to buy an experience interstate down here so showing a map is wayyy more useful than a bunch of useless benefits.

Hey I got this one wrong.

Funny thing I’ve noticed…when I view/vote on the tests on my phone, I’ve batted over .800…when I look at them in my browser, I’m maybe .600…maybe there is something to looking at a smaller image of your page to get a more ‘holistic view’ and not get mired in the details, but be able to focus more on the aesthetic.

Version B is too cluttered. My eyes don’t want to look at the page at all.

With Version A, I at least have something to click on.

End of the day – their homepage is too cluttered. Clean it up and they can easily get another significant boost.

Better call to action.

Implicity I was believing I would see deals in my area if I click the map.

Join the conversation:

(Privacy Assured)
  1. Comment moderation is enabled, We'll do our best to approve comments asap.
  2. If you have any trouble submitting comments, please send me an email (CustomerService@WhichTestWon.com).