[HN Gopher] Looks vs. Results: My ugly ad got 150% more clicks t... ___________________________________________________________________ Looks vs. Results: My ugly ad got 150% more clicks than a professional design Author : gk1 Score : 70 points Date : 2021-01-02 12:15 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.gkogan.co) (TXT) w3m dump (www.gkogan.co) | H8crilA wrote: | There were 12 (24) clicks total, you don't even have to use | p-value or any other calculation to know that this result means | pretty much nothing ... | boas wrote: | p value by Fisher's exact test is 0.007. It's a significant | difference. | joegahona wrote: | The author argues in the comments that it's statistically | significant: https://www.gkogan.co/blog/looks-vs- | results/?r=2#comment-520... | andreilys wrote: | Their argument consists of linking an optimizely screenshot. | | 12 vs 24 clicks is not significant, it could've gone either | way. Also given this minuscule sample, it's easy to conduct | p-hacking to get the desired outcome | jonex wrote: | Could you explain the calculations that lead to the claim | that the result is not significant? From what I can tell, | if we assume that clicking the ad is a weighted binary | variable, eg. what is modelled as a "proportional | distribution" there's a statistically significant | difference between the two results. It's even pretty strong | at P=0.006 (per https://epitools.ausvet.com.au/ztesttwo), | but I might be missing something? | | In other words, if I'm doing the math right, for him to | p-hack this by rerunning the experiment in the case of no | difference, he'd have to run it more than 100 times to get | a 50% chance of getting as good or better significance. | | There's of course plenty of other things that could be | wrong outside of the simple statistical test, he could be | making the numbers up, the groups might not be properly | randomized etc. | throwaway2245 wrote: | It _is absolutely_ 'significant' for the usual statistical | meaning, p<0.05. | xmichael0 wrote: | Thank you for commenting, I am rather annoyed I spent the time | to read this... The author waisted everyone and his time. | whimsicalism wrote: | Ah yes, the brilliant "reject a priori" inference strategy in | the wild. | | It's a statistically significant difference. | NationalPark wrote: | I'm not sure the author really understands the math (from his | comments) but he's right that it's significant, where | significant means "I am at least 95% confident that the | observed improvement is caused by this change". The test is | fine (assuming he didn't just check the results every day until | he found one that would make for a fun blog post). | | The reason it feels intuitively broken is because the | conversion rate is so low. But there were about 10k impressions | in his test. | canjobear wrote: | That's not what significance means. | NationalPark wrote: | I mean... yes it is? 95% confidence in an effect is what | most people mean when they say "statistically significant". | throwaway2245 wrote: | It depends. | | The fact that it has a significant p-value is interesting, but | the lack of information about how the author decided when to | stop is suggestive of p-hacking (i.e. we don't know how many | screenshots were taken, but we understand that the author | posted only the most favourable one) | bpodgursky wrote: | In the real world, we often have to work on a "preponderance of | evidence" standard to actually get things done. | | Especially if the second option is cheaper and faster, there's | IMO no bayesian prior that the professional ad being better | (the null hypothesis) is true. | | So... seems like useful data to me. | Tinyyy wrote: | I think there can be prior that a professional looking ad can | generate more clicks. Your argument shows a lack of | statistical understanding - conditional on this data, the | Bayesian approach would be to update the prior (whether A is | better, or they're equally as good) with the data collected. | With such a small dataset, you might end up with a belief | that there's a 60% probability that B is better than A, but | that's not significant enough to conclude that B is in fact | better than A, as you still have a lot of uncertainty. | | With a prior that A is superior, you may still end up | believing that A > B after updating, because there's just so | little data. | mlyle wrote: | Yes, but the significance is high here; it's a pretty | (un)lucky outcome to get if A and B are equivalent, let | alone if A is better than B. | mlyle wrote: | When I calculate a p value, it looks like p<0.01. | | That seems like a highly significant result to me... | contravariant wrote: | Well, with low probability events you can go a bit further with | your back of the envelop calculations, because that means | they're more or less Poisson distributed. The average is | somewhere around 16 so that gives a standard deviation of 4. | | So there's about 3 standard deviations between the two, this | sounds like quite a bit but really means they're both 1.5 | standard deviations from the supposed mean. Which is, not | great, though it might pass some of the weaker statistical | tests. | | Now you should actually weight the values by the total number | of impressions in which case you might get a slightly higher | significance since the one with 12 clicks was seen by more | people. | | So on the balance you should be wondering what you're paying | the graphic designer for, but perhaps not start a new career | designing low-budget adds. | whimsicalism wrote: | Fisher's exact test p-value of 0.007 is pretty decent, not | "not great." | [deleted] | cabaalis wrote: | The first thing I read on the hand drawn version was "free | guide". In the "professional" version, my mind glossed over those | words completely. I don't know why, other than maybe the pretty | pictures at the bottom pulled my eye away. | | I'll click on free. | anonytrary wrote: | Option A doesn't stand out. It just looks like "another ad" or | another component on a website. Stand out. | insickness wrote: | It's old news that in copywriting, copy with some misspellings | typically performs better. While you may lose some who see the ad | as less trustful, people respond to ads that make them feel like | they've discovered something secret, new or underground. | bichiliad wrote: | Ignoring the other points about bounce rate, brand identity, and | statistical significance for a second, I think an aspect that's | missed a lot is that good design accomplishes a goal. The hand- | drawn ad, by this definition, stands out more than the "well- | designed" one just by virtue of being visually distinct. Asking a | firm to help you design an ad capaign should involve iteration, | testing, and refinement as different ideas are tested on your | audience. If you ask a firm to take some words and make them look | good you're missing out on most of the design process. | solarkraft wrote: | It does look very _different_ and thus inspires curiosity. But it | wouldn 't exactly inspire _trust_ in me. | Puts wrote: | Making people click is not the problem. People follow garbage | click-bait links all the time. Design is not just about "making | things look nice". It's just as much about creating identity. | What does it matter if you bring users to your site if it's the | wrong kind that does not convert to real customers? Seems like | there's a particular type of business leaders that thinks | marketing is just a numbers game. | joegahona wrote: | Yeah exactly, another thing he could've done is put a girl in a | bikini or a gross pic of toenails, a la Outbrain. That'll get | people to click more than a "normal" ad but only the hackiest | of hacks thinks that's the ultimate goal. | ppeetteerr wrote: | It worked for godaddy... | MattGaiser wrote: | The hand drawn one seems more authentic. | jonnycomputer wrote: | Hand drawn one was easier to read, and had fewer distractions. It | also looked like what a manager might scribble down in their | notes during a meeting. | [deleted] | 0_gravitas wrote: | We see this very often at where I work as well | chiefalchemist wrote: | > An ad that took me 15 seconds to create had a 2.5x better | clickthrough rate than one done by a paid designer. If this were | an actual campaign it would mean 2.5x more sales leads or user | signups at a lower acquisition cost, on top of shipping faster | with less overhead. | | That is a false assumption. | | Not all clickers are equal. | | Not all leads are equal. | | More is not necessarily better. | | Better is better. Full stop. | cblconfederate wrote: | Digital ads used to be noticeable (because flash and gifs). | Google and fb ads are bland and don't stick out, and you don't | even have an option. I wonder how advertisers missed this bit, | novelty used to be the desired goal in old media advertising. | aaronbrethorst wrote: | I find the paid-for design to be uninteresting and unattractive. | If you were to ask me what I'd find when I clicked through, I | would say that it's likely I'd be asked to sign up for a low- | quality mailing list to receive a bland white paper. | | The scribble version is, at least, novel. Still probably wouldn't | click through, but at least it would grab my attention for a | moment. | amelius wrote: | Yeah but the scribble version wears off faster, when everybody | else starts copying the trick. | aaronbrethorst wrote: | Would I rather: | | Use a design that costs me money to produce and doesn't work, | or... | | Use a design that does not cost me to produce and _does_ | work, and then find something new to do when the novelty | wears off? | | Not a tough call for me. | amelius wrote: | Sure, but that doesn't make the article's outcome | universally true. | throwaway2245 wrote: | The ugly scribble design is simply better design - using better | design principles. | | It communicates the useful part (in particular, the "call to | action") clearly and instantly, without distraction. | | There's more going into this than just the concept of writing | on paper. | xupybd wrote: | Ugly can be good advertising. Just have a look at | https://lingscars.com | | Very ugly site, but impossible to forget that branding. It's my | understanding they do very well. | andai wrote: | Looks just like the stuff I find in my (physical) mailbox. | | A lot of Indian websites look like this too (like paper | advertising leaflets). | Ayraa wrote: | What was the bounce rate, avg visit time and conversion rate | (email signup) between people who came from the non-designed vs. | designed ad though? | | A higher clickthrough rate isn't necessarily better if more of | the people who came from the non-designed ad didn't do much or | anything on the page and mostly clicked out of curiosity. | daniellarusso wrote: | My best performing ads have been black backgrounds with white | text, no grayscale. | amelius wrote: | If you target hackers, try black backgrounds and green text. | bdcravens wrote: | The professional "design" is too busy and noisy, distracting me | from title. The call to action is tiny. The "ugly" design | increases the lettering to a larger % of the total graphic. A | design with these changes, and graphics that are a better | abstraction for the message, would likely perform much better. | (tl;dr pretty design != good design) | ben174 wrote: | This might simply be performing better due to shock factor. I'd | be interested in seeing how these ads would perform if they | weren't a novelty. | anonytrary wrote: | That's the entire point. | Ayesh wrote: | Ad blindness is real. The "professional" ad is a text book | corporate ad that people often ignore. | Finnucane wrote: | It looks like the party invite email that you get from HR to | tell you there's leftover pizza in the break room. | notahacker wrote: | Probably worse than most textbook corporate ads: the 'free | guide' and 'read more' are too small to catch the eye, and the | title is boring and generic even so even the sort of person | that reads ads and is in the target audience might pass. | Unsurprising the novelty ad performs better, but a better | conventional one might too. | christiansakai wrote: | Out of novelty. | masonlee wrote: | This reminds me of "the most popular reddit ad ever" the "Magic | Internet Money" MS Paint wizard. | | https://medium.com/@paulbars/magic-internet-money-how-a-redd... | fossuser wrote: | I'd wonder about click through vs. conversion and if there's a | difference there. | | Might just be because of novelty factor, but also may be tricking | less sophisticated users because it looks different and those | users may be less likely to convert. | | It'd be interesting to see conversion results too. | glangdale wrote: | Yes, had the same thought. The hand-drawn one is unusual. If | this strategy proliferated then it might well stop working, | losing the novelty effect. | corysama wrote: | I've seen variations of this article before. It's the | novelty. "That's different... What would someone pay real | money to advertise with something that looks so cheap and | crappy? Click." | ppeetteerr wrote: | I've read somewhere that porn ads and political ads perform | better when they don't look professionally made. If I were a | publisher, I would be very selective about the quality of the ads | being displayed. I would also be in the minority since even CNN | has ugly ads at the bottom of every article ("You won't believe | what she looks like today!") | biolurker1 wrote: | I mean of you put a foto of an ass people would click to see wtf | is going on but would never subscribe or buy software etc. | Meaningless post really | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Are you sure they wouldn't? I am not. | | Some donkeys look cute ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-03 23:00 UTC)