We recently experimented with two different web presenter videos to see which performed best at encouraging our visitors to complete a call to action.
In this article, I am going to tell you how we increased our conversion rate by nearly 300% through a change in script and a change in presenter. I will talk you through the two different approaches we took, how we monitored and compared their impact and why we think they generated the results they did.
Video 1 – Hugo
The first video was of Hugo, the Managing Director at MWP. We thought it would be interesting to see if an untrained but approachable presenter would have a positive effect on our conversion rate. As our MD, we felt that he would inspire trust in our audience.
Click this link to see the original video of Hugo.
The results of this first video weren’t hugely impressive and so we chose to experiment with this second video of Natasha. Natasha is our resident presenter and previous videos that she has featured in (for ourselves and for some clients) have performed well. Hence why she is one of our resident presenters!
Click this link to see the new video of Natasha.
We monitored the impact of each video using Google Analytics. We set up an ‘experiment’ to compare each video and the impact they had on our conversion rate.
This graph shows pictorially the difference in impact each video had on our conversion rate. It is visible that a decline in the performance of the Hugo (orange line) video corresponds with a significant increase in the conversion rate associated with the Natasha (blue line) video. Natasha’s video outperforms Hugo’s video by nearly 300%.
So, what were the factors that made the Natasha video perform so much better than the Hugo video?
Length of script
The length of each of the scripts are similar, 1:32 for the Hugo video and 1:33 for Natasha. It is unlikely that this factor had a direct impact on the results. We generally play by the rule that shorter and to the point makes better, more effective scripts. As the lengths of these scripts are the same, we established immediately that other qualities about the scripts had influenced the results.
Hugo’s script was fairly technical. It used a lot of specialist language such as ‘leads’ and ‘conversions’ and talked more about the thought behind web presenters. Natasha’s script is a more tangible explanation of how a presenter can be used – tangible because of the special effects, demonstrating to the viewer visually what a presenter can do.
In Hugo’s script, one of the major points (money back guarantee) is towards the end. It is possible that people in the audience will have switched off by this point. Natasha’s script comes across as more concise and despite the length being similar, it feels to the viewers as though she gets to the point more quickly (the process of getting there is also more entertaining!).
We chose to have Hugo present because he is our MD, he is a genuine expert in the area of online video and we hoped that his authenticity would inspire trust. It seems that the power of a professional presenter and special effects won our audience over more than this approach with Hugo.
Presenter preference is extremely subjective and sometimes it can be difficult to predict who your audience will respond most positively to. Depending on your audience and your subject matter, there will be more (or less) appropriate options in terms of age, gender and style – to name but a few factors.
Hugo and Natasha have completely different delivery styles. To dissect a particular point, Natasha delivers the call to action is a cheeky manner which has more entertainment value. This must have impacted on how many viewers chose to complete the form at the end of the video.
The wow factor in the Natasha video with the special effects is something that the majority of people are impressed by – it enables them to SEE what a presenter can do, rather than just being talked at. The lesson for us is that we should use opportunities like this to really dazzle our audience.
Experiments like this one are perfect learning experiences. The points we made in our analysis seem obvious with hindsight but in truth, the only way to really know these things is to prove them by experimenting, monitoring the results and analysing them to improve future practice.