Understanding Eye Flow and Avoiding The Corner of Death

Leave a comment


I just recently started following the Neuromarketing blog and wanted to share a really interesting article they just posted in today’s issue.

It’s called “Avoid the Corner of Death!,” and it is greatness. Below, I’ve copy/pasted their article, including the most interesting part: The eye flow chart.

Understanding this is critical, especially for landing page optimization purposes, and tells me that if you’re placing your most important information (a video, an ask, etc.) on the upper-right hand corner of a two-column landing page layout, that you’re putting your most important information at the last place in which this eyeflow chart ends.

More over, anything in the bottom-right corner is squarely in the “Corner of Death,” and will be overlooked by your audience. Avoid this at all costs.

Here’s the rest of the article:

What’s the worst place to put your logo, and where do advertisers most often put their logo in print ads, TV spots, and direct mail pieces? The answer is the same: the lower right corner, an area dubbed the “Corner of Death” by facial coding expert Dan Hill.

Hill’s comments stem from an interesting eyetracking study by Steve Outing and Laura Rule, reported in The Best of Eyetrack III. This illustration shows a composite average of how people scan a typical web page:

 

Corner of Death

Understanding eye flow & how visitors view your web page, website, email, or print piece and where you should (and more importantly should NOT) place your most important information.

Outing and Rule caution against taking this exact path too seriously, as variations in layout will cause differences in how people scan the page. The skull graphic wasn’t part of Outing and Rule’s report, but rather inspired by a similar image in Hill’s new book, About Face.

In an recent article, Hill says:

If we take print ads as an example, you’ve got 1.7 seconds of average viewing time, per reader. And the lower right-hand corner is typically the second to last place people look on a page. (What’s even worse in terms of timing, along the upper right edge, i.e., the alley of death.) What you don’t see, you don’t get. [From Mediapost – The 6 Secrets of Eye-tracking by Dan Hill.]

Despite these findings, the lower right corner is by far the most common single location for the primary logo/brand identity use in all types of advertising, according to Hill.

So based on eye-tracking research, where should the logo or brand identity be placed so that consumers actually see it? Hill says that the best place is the lower middle part of the page or layout, At that point, the viewer will have engaged emotionally with the leading part of the ad, and will then have the opportunity to associate the brand with solving a problem or satisfying consumers’ wants.

I hope you enjoyed.

— GC

Further evidence that the preselected level on your conversion form increases your average sale

Leave a comment


Preselected Value Chart

Further evidence that the preselected value increases your average sale.

In an article that I wrote on this  blog back in July titled, “Preselected values — your donation form’s best friend,” I covered a test conducted by our friends at the Salem Web Network regarding how their average gift values were increased by sending visitors in a split test to a form with (A) no preselected values, and (B) a preselected value of $50.

In an effort to further implement this line of thinking into our processes for fund raising, we conducted a test with one of our clients in an attempt to increase our average gift (or average sale) amount.

As seen in the chart above, we had seven different donation levels, each level being given a specific dollar amount tied to each level. Our goal was to set the preselected value at “Supporting Member,” which was a $50 giving level.

We started our testing on 7/28 and ran it through 9/30.

Over the test period, we have seen an increase of “Supporting Member” or the $50 giving level amount increase by 24.2%.

One of the things that we wanted to do was ensure that there were no negative impact on other key measurement categories such as conversion rate, or a decline in upper tiered giving levels. It’s important to pay attention to these figures, as if we increase the number of $50 gifts in exchange for a large decrease in $75, or $100 gifts — we negatively impact the revenue we are generating.

Also, if we decrease the conversion rate, we’re losing donors as a result of our changes — which will have a negative impact on our lifetime donor values and subsequent year revenue figures.

I am proud to report that (at least through this test period) that we did not see a significant decrease in either of the two figures mentioned above.

In fact, you can see an increase in the next level up (“Level 3”) throughout this testing period and a decline in the amount of “Level 1” (the donor level below) throughout.

This tells us that those arriving at the site with the intent to give a gift/donate, are willing to give a gift at our preselected value level, or the next level up, as opposed to the “least expensive” option available on the form.

We’ll continue to run tests, and will be providing sporadic updates on the subject matter as time goes on.

Enjoy.

— GC

Should I send my email newsletter before my print newsletter?

Leave a comment


 

Newsletter

Should you send your email newsletter before your print version, or afterRecently, a colleague on our traditional side of the agency asked my thoughts on when they should time the delivery of one of our client's email newsletter against the delivery time frame for the print version.

 

In this case, the content is almost exactly the same. The lone difference is that the email version is an abbreviated version of the printed version.

So, she asked, “What are your thoughts on when we should send it?”, then offered, “We’re thinking we wait about 10 days to time the email newsletter to land nearly at the same time.”

When considering the content, I recommended that she actually send the email version of the newsletter as soon as it is ready, regardless of when the printed version is expected to be sent.

Why? It’s simple: build value for the email version of the newsletter.

There are a few value propositions for organizations to transition to sending email newsletters, as opposed to print, namely that they save on print production and shipping fees, but the most important thing we can do is position the email newsletter as a “first glance” at news — thereby creating a higher incentive for those registering to receive our newsletters in print to consider also registering their email addresses.

This gives us, as marketers, an opportunity to include them in other email delivery types (of course after receiving permission from those registered readers to do so).

It also delivers an opportunity for those reading our newsletters with a chance to get their news more quickly, more easily, and with a message to be “looking out” for our printed version to be delivered soon.

Of course, you need to segment your email file into a couple of groups (where one segment is on both email and print recipient lists, while the other is on an email-only recipient list). A simple change to your introduction copy to ensure the highest level of relevance will be necessary, as well.

That’s it for this week — quick and easy. I hope you enjoyed.

All the best,

— GC

How can I measure the level of engagement a web visitor has with my website content?

2 Comments


Recently, our team developed a proprietary formula to properly measure the level of engagement a web visitor has with any particular piece of web content.

By leveraging data found within Google Analytics, we build the following formulaic equation and named it the Aggregate Engagement Index™.

Here is the formula:

((AP x AT) x (1-AB)) + (0.1 x AP)

  • AP = Average Page Views
  • AT = Average Time on Site (measured in seconds)
  • AB = Average Bounce Rate

The Aggregate Engagement Index™ enables us to compare the relative engagement levels of each traffic source to
BioLogos.org. The most engaged audience is the one that receives the highest rank value.

Notice that the formula doesn’t place emphasis upon the amount of traffic arriving at the particular page. We specifically made this decision to give all pages an “equal opportunity” against pages like the home page of a website, etc.

For a few examples of how this works, let’s take a look at some sample data below:

Referral Source Visitors Avg. Pages Avg. Time Avg. Bounce Engagement Rank
Blogs 68,849 3.14 264.32 49.72% 4.48
Facebook 16,579 1.93 146.52 70.67% 1.02
Other Social 4,159 2.99 266.29 54.79% 3.90
Twitter 6,158 1.65 98.71 74.02% 0.59
YouTube 584 4.21 355.48 38.18% 9.66


In this example, I am attempting to measure the engagement rank associated with visitors from a particular type of referral source (in this case, social networks).

As shown in the chart, visitors arriving at my website from Blogs represent the largest amount of visitors, but visitors arriving at my website from YouTube are 115.67% more engaged in my content.

Pretty cool, huh? This can tell me a number different things (I need to focus more attention on attracting visitors from YouTube, Facebook visitors are “overrated”, Twitter visitors are the least engaged, I need to focus on blog syndication, etc).

I hope you enjoyed.

— GC

%d bloggers like this: