I suck at marketing copy and found this article helpful
When I launched my product here on IH, I had a fellow indie hacker @Signature post the following comment [1], of which excerpt I'll paste here:
This is looking really good. I would seriously consider getting rid of the self deprecating aspects of the texts, though. Sure, you want to add a personal touch, but I would go for a different kind of emotion.
Especially the text that the user is greeted with should be simple, captivating and ideally convey a benefit - not a feature. Something like "Stackdraft makes your most complex architecture diagrams presentable" could be parsed a lot more easily, for example.
The original text was something along the line:
Look, we may suck at web design,
but our cloud architecture diagrams are something!
I totally agreed and changed the copy on the landing page ASAP. We all know what you see when you open a product page is super important, but honestly it's not obvious at first when you're at the keyboard and putting that page together. So, when I found this article today with hints on marketing copy that I found helpful, I thought of sharing it with you guys. It boils down to answering the following questions, but I recommend checking out the full article, it's not long.
Does my copy immediately arrest the attention of the prospect?
Am I sufficiently building the problem before presenting the solution?
Does my copy clearly express the value of my offer?
Am I using the proper amount of copy relative to the magnitude of my ask?
Does my call-to-action align with the expectations of my prospect?
Don't list features. Tell your prospects what value does your product bring them. Thank you for that very first suggestion, Andreas (@Signature). I'm happy I can learn from and learn together with you all.
The article is linked at the top of this post, under the title. First time I'm sharing a link like that here :)
Hello @mkarnicki.
The act of sharing is cool.
That article is however at best flawed, and at worst deceptive.
Discovery 1:
Version A did better than Version B, however to attribute it solely on the change in UVP, as they have done so, is wrong. Look at the rest of the arrangement, the copy, et al, on the two versions.
Version A has a greater appreciation of space, lays out benefits in a more easier digestible manner, asks for far less information at the bottom, and is generally designed better. It gives you an indication of what their specific servers might look like, and also has some social proof with the testimonial.
Version B. Has stock server imagery, and even if Version A does the same, B's is so common that it doesn't mean anything. B's benefits, I am not sure if there are even any on there, it reads like a wall of text, eyes not really sure where to go, but they surely don't want to go over to what appears to be nothing short of a full on questionnaire. The only thing missing from that questionnaire is the request for a stool sample, so conversion rate for that would be very poor.
Out of the 2 UVP's, and although both are rubbish, B's is actually better:
A: Australia's Most Trusted & Accredited Business Hosting Company. Self-centered, old school brand marketing. Am I supposed to be impressed? Yes we do need social proof, and there are some sections who find safety in numbers. Accreditation is also important, but off-the-bat? No, this line isn't about me, it's about them. The value I get is a side-effect, as they are wrapped up in themselves.
B: Business dedicated servers Australia. So, we know their servers are for businesses, and they are based in Australia, so Australian businesses who need to comply with any specific regulations as to in-country storage of their citizens data know straight away.
I haven't got time to break the other discovery's down, but the point stands, flawed or deceptive article, because it has taken things out of context to make a case, and we have no idea at all if other things were equal or not. Based on Discovery 1, we do have to question if indeed things were equal for the other discoveries.
Cheers, Ace.
Well said, Ace. Honestly I didn't analyze the two screenshots in so much detail and I agree with the general points the article made (naturally I read the article in detail, just didn't spend on point 1. as much time as you have). Your detailed commentary is certainly a great supplement/follow-up to the article, so I thank you for taking time to write it. I'm sure other IndieHackers will appreciate it, too :)!
PS The stool stample made me laugh :D
Thanks for sharing your learning! This is what makes the Indie Hackers community so powerful.
You are totally right...listing features don't get potential customers excited. They are coming to your product because they expect it to provide them with value / benefit.
One way to verify this for yourself is to add Hotjar to your website. It tracks where users look on your site, what they click on, etc.
I've noticed that people spend more and more time on the site when I made the switch from listing features to listing benefits (my project is www.tribefive.me for reference).
Cheers!
Jonathan
Thanks for the suggestion Jonathan. I've heard of hotjar before and will consider using it :)