Case Study: How Display Size Can Affect Landing Page Performance

BenPOF

BenPOF

https://ads.pof.com
Nov 2, 2009
1,276
26
0
Vancouver, BC
www.pof.com
Happy April Fools! While the rest of the world tries to trick you, we’re going against the grain here and delivering another info-packed case study! My friends over at iPyxel tested landing page resolutions to see if it had an impact on their ads. So basically just making the page larger or smaller! The results are going to surprise you!

They tested 3 resolutions:

1024×768 – “Low-Resolution”
1366×768 – “Mid-Resolution”
1920×1080 – “High-Resolution”

CTR:
03_31_2013_ctr.png


CONVERSION RATE
03_31_2013_cvr.png


PROFIT/LOSS
03_31_2013_profit.png


Isn’t that crazy? What struck me was that the low res landing page had over 3x the conversion rate of the high res landing page. Why do you think that is? We certainly don’t know LOL.

For the details (which landing page they used, targeting etc…) Check out the iPyxel blog! POF Case Study: How Display Size Can Affect Performance | iPyxel Creations | Demand-side performance marketing software and digital marketing insights

Ben
 


This so easy to figure out. It might be because people with high-resolution screens are more tech savvy that people with lower resolution monitors, therefore are less likely to convert on offers.

Think about how all the high-res monitors owners you know, are they people that are more tech savvy???? Yes.

If you put a customer profile for the market research before doing random marketing you would have determine the offer converts better with people that are less tech savvy... as with MOST online advertisements.

Carry on...​
 
BenPOF said:
What would you say is the ideal resolution then? Or would the "fit to screen" resolution work better than something that was smaller?
Click to expand...

I'm actually having a conversation with the Tom dude on that link you sent (I go into much more details there), but it comes down to demographic, and you're thinking about it incorrectly. There is not a One-size fits all solution.

Tech Savvy individuals may need a more tech savvy landing page to convert, whereas Low tech individuals will convert on pages that are not as tech savvy.

The best scenario is to have 3 different landing pages, EACH are split tested for their demo. Meaning, you a/b split test landing pages for low tech individuals. Then when a person with a low tech profile comes to the website, they'll get the best optimized landing page for them.

Then you a/b split test high tech landing pages and display them to high tech individuals when they arrive at the site.

It's like mobile advertisement versus Desktop. The type of platform they come to the site with has to also be optimized and split tested individually in a vacuum. Just because this landing pages works on low-tech does mean it's going to be even in the running for hi-tech individuals, etc. If you have the technology, you need to segment the individuals the best way possible, and then do split tests accordingly, and always be testing... forever.

"You can't sell a person used to Bentleys the same way you sell a person used to Hondas." - CCarter​
 
CCarter said:
I'm actually having a conversation with the Tom dude on that link you sent (I go into much more details there), but it comes down to demographic, and you're thinking about it incorrectly. There is not a One-size fits all solution.

Tech Savvy individuals may need a more tech savvy landing page to convert, whereas Low tech individuals will convert on pages that are not as tech savvy.

The best scenario is to have 3 different landing pages, EACH are split tested for their demo. Meaning, you a/b split test landing pages for low tech individuals. Then when a person with a low tech profile comes to the website, they'll get the best optimized landing page for them.

Then you a/b split test high tech landing pages and display them to high tech individuals when they arrive at the site.

It's like mobile advertisement versus Desktop. The type of platform they come to the site with has to also be optimized and split tested individually in a vacuum. Just because this landing pages works on low-tech does mean it's going to be even in the running for hi-tech individuals, etc. If you have the technology, you need to segment the individuals the best way possible, and then do split tests accordingly, and always be testing... forever.

"You can't sell a person used to Bentleys the same way you sell a person used to Hondas." - CCarter​
Click to expand...

Right, I get what you're saying and in a perfect world, we could target low-tech individuals & high-tech individuals separately. Even going by screen res is a roundabout way to go about it. For example, a high-tech individual on a laptop would result in a low-res but high-tech person situation.

What I'm trying to find out is, what is the best generic resolution for the campaign. Of course, it will vary by campaign but the point is made: resolution matters.
 
BenPOF said:
What I'm trying to find out is, what is the best generic resolution for the campaign. Of course, it will vary by campaign but the point is made: resolution matters.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. One thing I stated to Tom was that I noticed the 1920x1200 version looked pretty shitty in my opinion. It was just a stretched out version, and did not properly utilize the spacing as it could have. I think in the future, when doing a campaign for 1920x1200, it shouldn't simply looked like a stretched out version, which might be the more direct approach = LP looks bad, so less conversions.​
 
I am actually really interested to find out if the "perfect fit" ie. a script that reformats the lander to fit the user's resolution would outperform a straight up low res lander.

BTW, do you know if a high res lander loads slower too?
 
Ben, I did a quick scan if the case study and what seems to be missing is the sample size and the percent of the sample in each of the 3 screen categories. With this we could see if there is a statistically significant correlation between the screen size and conversion rate. Once we have that, the interesting part is causation as ccarter is saying: is there a direct causal relationship (eg creative looks bad on a big screen) or is there a third factor causing both the screen size and convention rate For example tech savvyness, income level, education, even OS (eg maybe Mac owners have a higher prevalence on that particular monitor size and the lander doesn't render well on Safari for some reason).

It would be really interesting to see the numbers on how large the 3 samples were.

Interesting study in any case.
 
Ben - as a slight aside, and as it's reasonably related - I'm interested to know your thoughts on responsive design.
 
I agree with CCarter as to the more tech savvy crowd, however, there is certainly more to it than that... There is so much to test here it's crazy and drawing conclusions from that test is probably not a good idea.

You need to define your target.

Does tech savvy mean nerdy or affluent?

Do the girls you are displaying appeal to nerds?
Do the girls you are displaying appeal to affluent?

What about the colors, fonts, headlines?

This would be a great taguchi test as there are so many variables with this page, resolution being only one and I bet a minor one.
 
CCarter said:
This so easy to figure out. It might be because people with high-resolution screens are more tech savvy that people with lower resolution monitors, therefore are less likely to convert on offers.

Think about how all the high-res monitors owners you know, are they people that are more tech savvy???? Yes.

If you put a customer profile for the market research before doing random marketing you would have determine the offer converts better with people that are less tech savvy... as with MOST online advertisements.

Carry on...​
Click to expand...

For real though, clever analysis.

interdasting.jpg
 
spitfire said:
Ben, I did a quick scan if the case study and what seems to be missing is the sample size and the percent of the sample in each of the 3 screen categories. With this we could see if there is a statistically significant correlation between the screen size and conversion rate. Once we have that, the interesting part is causation as ccarter is saying: is there a direct causal relationship (eg creative looks bad on a big screen) or is there a third factor causing both the screen size and convention rate For example tech savvyness, income level, education, even OS (eg maybe Mac owners have a higher prevalence on that particular monitor size and the lander doesn't render well on Safari for some reason).

It would be really interesting to see the numbers on how large the 3 samples were.

Interesting study in any case.
Click to expand...

I believe there was the same amount of $ spent to each resolution. There's no way to get the # of users that saw it unfortunately :(

microphone head said:
Ben - as a slight aside, and as it's reasonably related - I'm interested to know your thoughts on responsive design.
Click to expand...

For an affiliate, the KISS principle takes the cake in my opinion. Fast load times, clear and concise way of presenting information, nice call to action.

For larger brands, responsive design is a great way to engage your audience and keep them amused & spending time on your site.. maybe even get them talking about something cool that you've managed to implement.

Meatytreats said:
I agree with CCarter as to the more tech savvy crowd, however, there is certainly more to it than that... There is so much to test here it's crazy and drawing conclusions from that test is probably not a good idea.

You need to define your target.

Does tech savvy mean nerdy or affluent?

Do the girls you are displaying appeal to nerds?
Do the girls you are displaying appeal to affluent?

What about the colors, fonts, headlines?

This would be a great taguchi test as there are so many variables with this page, resolution being only one and I bet a minor one.
Click to expand...


There's definitely more to test but this is just 1 thing that everyone could play with that seems easy enough to split test. I mean hell, if you could double your conversion rate due to resolution, it's worth a few hundred bucks to test.
 
This is interesting because one of the first things I think about is screen resolution and who is going to be viewing it. The only reason I do this is because I'm such an avid RWD chap (in case I've not said it before) I develop with mobile devices in mind by default, and that reflects directly in my approach to desktop displays - i.e. it's made me think about who is going to be using what screen resolution and how to make the content appropriate.

PC @ 1280x1024 - Average young person. Budget(ish) whores, these people fly economy always - let's say Easyjet whores.

Samsung S3 - geek or hipster calibre whores - one of the two, they're both different and usually both "different" too.

iMac @ 1920 - geek or affluent calibre whores - strip-club whores & multi-numbers at time. Good for a re-rinse too type whores.

- or: audio / video post-production houses - drug-fuelled nights in top Soho bar calibre whores

Old WAP phone - cheapest skanky whores imaginable.

iPhone - probably cheaper whores who scrub up well.

PC 1024x768 - er... no whores as they're mums, dads, grans, aunts etc. Gardening & DIY whores - there you go that'll do.

(was serious about it being one of my first thoughts though)
 
BenPOF said:
There's definitely more to test but this is just 1 thing that everyone could play with that seems easy enough to split test. I mean hell, if you could double your conversion rate due to resolution, it's worth a few hundred bucks to test.
Click to expand...


The point is that unless you detect the resolution and isolate the test across all 3 resolutions, resulting in 3 different tests, then your conclusions do not provide any value.

I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise that the lowest resolution converts the best? It is conversion 101 to design your landing page for the smallest resolution that encompasses the majority of your visitors.

If I show a 1200x1900 ad to a 1024x768 user and they have to scroll left and right to see the entire ad, of course the conversion rate will suck.
 
Meatytreats said:
The point is that unless you detect the resolution and isolate the test across all 3 resolutions, resulting in 3 different tests, then your conclusions do not provide any value.

I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise that the lowest resolution converts the best? It is conversion 101 to design your landing page for the smallest resolution that encompasses the majority of your visitors.

If I show a 1200x1900 ad to a 1024x768 user and they have to scroll left and right to see the entire ad, of course the conversion rate will suck.
Click to expand...

Seema said:
fit to screen FTW
Click to expand...

So according to this logic, the fit to screen SHOULD result in the best performance, correct?
 
The content should fit to where things are best placed according to viewport. (screen resolution (and probable size), device type, device model, etc.)

With RWD that is taken care of for you if you design from the ground up like it - it's just a matter of design protocol really, but it leaves you to throw your test $ at other optimisation such as when you know the user's device deliver them the right whore etc. Spend the test there instead I'd say, but then I will support RWD until proven it's shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom