I made this comment on my twitter feed recently:
“A simple test of information’s effectiveness: How far into it do the majority of people have to go to find out what they need to know?”
I almost instantly started to see some holes in the statement, mostly brought about by having to cram it into those pesky 140 characters.
The biggest hole in my initial statement was neatly summed up by Rachel Potts (@citipotts) who asked:
“interesting idea for testing information’s effectiveness, but what would indicate “good” – going a long way in, or not?”
The consensus of the conversation that followed, was that it was very much dependent on the type of information.
The point of view I was reflecting was related to the kind of information I create – things like forms and instructions among others. It’s my belief that the longer someone has one of these pieces of information in their hands, the worse it is doing its job.
For a form of any substance, it’s rare for someone to have to fill in every question. For instructions, it’s rare that someone will use all the features that are described. So, the quicker these pieces of information get the majority of users (those that aren’t answering all the questions or trying all the features) to ‘what they need to know’ the more successful they’ve been, because they’ve kept the chances of users making mistakes, either through losing concentration or frustration, to a minimum.
For more sales focussed information, I think it’s fair to assume the opposite applies: the longer a reader remains engaged with it the higher the chances are of it being successful in contributing to a sale.
So, with all that in mind, here’s a fuller version of what I meant to say:
“A simple test of how effective information that people ‘have’ to use (such as forms and instructions) is how far into it the user has to go to do what they ‘need’ to do”
Interesting. It’s probably true that longer engagement with sales material makes a ‘close’ more likely. But at the same time, the purpose of marketing material is to elicit a particular action, not facilitate endless browsing.
If your prospect’s buying process includes a lot of research, then helping them find things out is probably worthwhile.
But if it’s a ‘distress purchase’ (e.g. insurance) where browsing and selection isn’t that much fun, you probably want to push them towards a sale sooner rather than later.
This feeds into the question of whether and where to include a call to action, and how forceful to make it.
It’s also interesting in relation to blogs and other ‘sticky’ content. Would you rather someone browsed your blog to learn about your expertise, or picked up the phone to talk about their situation? Is there such a thing as too much high-value content?
Thanks for your comments, Tom.
Your comment about insurance intrigues me, particularly around what point the decision to buy is made. As you say, it’s a purchase no one likes making and there are no particular ‘lifestyle’ differences between products. I’d guess the choice comes down to some very comparable features, and price of course. Presumably a well placed call to action could prove to be enough to sway someone’s choice in the face of much sameness, particularly if it gives the chance to speak to a human to explain the finer points of difference.
I also think your question about blogs is interesting. I reckon too much reliance on ‘high-value content’ means you run the risk of looking like a thinker rather than a doer. However, I do think a certain amount of theory gives credibility to more practical work. In my case, the practical work doesn’t really have instant visual impact in the same way a ‘graphic’ designer’s would, so I hope the theory serves to show I know what I’m doing – whether or not I succeed, I’ll let others judge.