Group items tagged

Create case studies If you really want to show the value in what you offer, you have to create case studies. The simple ones won’t cut it, you have to give detailed ones… ideally with the exact things you provided and the results. To legitimize the case studies, make sure you put in testimonials from customers. This can be done in the form of video or text and if you happen to go the text route, make sure you include: Their full name Company name Their picture Title at the company If you want to see an example of a good case study, check this one out from Conversion Rate Experts.

Offer a free trial One of the easiest ways to handle price objections is to offer a free trial. Remember, just because you are offering a free trial doesn’t mean you can’t take a credit card up front. With Crazy Egg, one of our biggest objections from people is that our prices are too high. We created a “free trial” offering in which people had to put in their credit card up front. That offer converted at 59% higher than our 30 day money back guarantee offer. Keep in mind that you will get a lot of people who will cancel your service before their free trial is up, so when you a/b test this you have to also include cancelations into your calculations.

Explain the value The easiest way to demand a high price point is to explain how much money you are going to either make a company, or how much money you will save them. If you can explain this in an easy to understand fashion and provide case studies to back it up, it shouldn’t be hard to demand a premium price. A great way to do this is through sales copy. And don’t worry, your copy doesn’t have to be sleazy. I do this with Crazy Egg, NeilPatel.com and I also used to do it for my Quick Sprout Traffic System. You could even spice up your sales copy by including a video incase people don’t want to read your copy.

Modern Techniques A decade later, things have changed since those early days of guerilla user testing. Now there are a few different ways to highlight usability issues and some of them are even easier, quicker, and cheaper to implement that the in-person tests that Nielsen popularized. Here are 4 test types that I’ve used: In person, moderated and lightly scripted: This is the traditional format of a usability test and of the in-person techniques, it’s the easiest one to get started with. A quick definition of terms: in person means that you’re sitting down with the user, moderated means that there’s someone talking to the user and acting as a sort of referee to keep things on track, and scripted means that there’s a fixed set of tasks written down in advance and that the moderator wants the user to accomplish. In person, moderated and unscripted: This is the Listening Lab technique popularized by Mark Hurst. It requires a bit more experience and finesse to pull off in order to gather valid usability insights without turning into a completely unstructured focus group. In it, the moderator asks the user what tasks he or she wants to accomplish before diving into the app, based on their demographic, a loose conversation about their interests, or their impressions of external marketing pages. Remote and moderated (scripted or unscripted): This can be roughly the same as the two techniques above, except the moderator and user aren’t physically present in the same room and use a video app like Skype to connect instead. This is especially a help to early stage projects, when initial early users can come from any part of the world. Remote, asynchronous and heavily scripted: This is the absolute easiest and most newbie-friendly way to try user testing. It’s enabled by relatively new tools like Usertesting.com, where the moderator and user don’t chat in real time and instead, the user is left on their own to follow step-by-step instructions on how to use the site or app in question, while their mouse movement and audio feedback is recorded.

The basic framework of an in-person tests is: Think about what goals you’d like the user to accomplish (yes, even for the unscripted tests because you still want to see if they can complete certain tasks, although in a looser, unguided format). Record everything – at least the audio and screen, if not also their face and body, so you can review later as well as share with the team. It’s a newbie mistake to try to moderate a test at the same time that you’re analyzing it for lessons, and even newbier to ask stakeholders to just listen to a summary when audio/visual feedback can have such a punch. Use about 5 or 6 people – any less has too much noise while any more has diminishing returns. Note that a qualitative research method like this is different from a quantitative one like A/B testing, where the cutoff is much higher and more users is always better. Let people explore and make mistakes on their own while also keeping them on task. Don’t talk so much that you’re explaining everything on the screen like a car salesman, but also don’t morosely sit back and let them feel judged. Try to strike a balance between friendly and observant.