How Web Graphics Affect Conversions

Another tip for increasing readership: don't have annoying popup social widgets that jump in front of the text.

This being an article by KISSmetrics, I was disappointed there were no actual numbers or research done for the article. Unless I missed something, not a single statement was backed up with actual data. The only study mentioned in the entire article was in the context of ad copy and was done over 30 years ago (I'm assuming they're referring to a study from Ogilvy on Advertising [1] but I could be wrong).<p>For example:<p><i>If the images you’re using are not clearly tied to your value proposition, or to the central theme of your page, then they will only confuse your readers. At best, they’ll be pointless distractions. At worst, they’ll give the wrong impression and lead readers to feel tricked or disappointed.</i><p>In my experience, the blog posts I've written gain much more traction when they have images, even pointless stock images (I have experimented with this). So while I agree, that ideally, images should provide actual value to the story, I've found that a couple pointless stock images are better than no images. This is why I would have <i>really</i> liked to see actual evidence to back up their claims.<p>EDIT: Also, while we're on the topic, I also hate including all those social sharing widgets, but viewership takes a dramatic hit when they're not there.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ogilvy-Advertising-David/dp/039472903X" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Ogilvy-Advertising-David/dp/039472903X</a>

&#62; Ogilvy found that, on average, headlines placed below an image are read by 10% more people than headlines above. Since reading the headline is a prerequisite of reading the body copy, you’re losing a potential 10% of your audience if you’re distracting them with an image in the wrong place.<p>Actually, you'd be losing at most about 9% of your audience. I know that's a bit of a nitpick, but it bugs me when people equate "not X% more" with "X% less".<p>Also, to actually lose 9% of your readers to your headline position, you have to make the very optimistic assumption that you're not losing readers to any other factor.

The shocking truth about conversions is that businesses, including startups, spend crazy amounts of time tricking people into "converting", instead of building products that, you know, actually improve people's lives.

Finished reading it. But where is the "Shocking Truth"? Wondering if I am missing something.

It's a shame that the kissmetrics.com does not follow this philosophy.

Most of it applies to photosharing websites as well - especially the bit about keeping the title/headline below the image. I'm irritated every time the title is at the top and I need to scroll up to see the title (The initial response for me is to inspect the photo - exactly as mentioned in the article).<p>Building one myself, I instinctively felt this should be below the image, but my designer disagreed and that's the way it is right now. We will definitely push this down - evidence always wins :)

I feel like the bombard-the-reader-with-images approach could be an artifact of thinking from the time when HTML images were still a novelty, simply because no one else had done it before. (I have absolutely no data to back this up though).<p>It just goes to show that quality &#62; quantity.<p>Thanks for the link, good read!

Here is a design tip for you: don't take up my screen space with useless shit I can't scroll away from

The annoying popups on the bottom of the article actually get in the way of reading it, to a point where I just close the page. They are definitely not following their own advice.

I thought the reason annoying generic stock images of salespeople smiling and wearing headsets were so common is that they <i>did</i> increase conversions, a lot.

I thought it was more or less proven that stock photos (like headset girls) do in fact work, how dull it may seem.

Not sure who kiss metrics is and I'm on my iPhone so not gonna check before posting, but this looks like a shitty Jason calacanis, mahalo style content farm article. There probably is something to the thesis "graphic design doesn't necessarily equal higher revenue" (I mean duh, see digg) but this post didn't support the thesis in a meaningful way.