Killer web content examples

Posted on September 29th, 2007 in Customer Carewords (Web Content).

Out of 18 choices, why does one piece of content get 49 percent of the vote while another gets 0 percent?

Over the last six years, I have tested a range of headings and summaries. The tests were carried out in 14 countries with almost 3,000 people. People were asked to scan 31 headings and 18 summaries about a particular subject and then quickly choose the one that stood out for them. The subject areas were:

  • The launch of iTunes
  • A pet food scare
  • A launch of discount software by Microsoft
  • The launch of the final Harry Potter book

Here’s a summary of the results:

TOP HEADINGS

  • Tons of tunes (22 percent)
  • Poison found in pet food (30 percent)
  • $3 software for developing countries (23 percent)
  • Flying off the shelves (31 percent)

BOTTOM HEADINGS

  • Apple’s Music Store breaks the mould and sells technology (0 percent)
  • Rodent poison found in now-recalled pet food blamed for animal deaths (0 percent)
  • Three-Dollar Windows for Govt-Subsidized Student Computers… (0 percent)
  • ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’ sells 2.6 million copies in 24 hours (0 percent)

TOP SUMMARIES

  • 99 cents per download, no restrictions. One million tracks sold online in one week encouraging sign for ailing music industry. Apple … (49 percent)
  • By Josh Fineman and Michael Quint. March 23 (Bloomberg) — Rat poison killed at least 16 cats and dogs and prompted last week’s recall of 60 million cans of … (38 percent)
  • Microsoft plans to offer a US$3 stripped-down package of Windows, Office and other software to people in developing … (34 percent)
  • WARNING: If you don’t want to know what happens in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” stop reading now. JK Rowling is far too savvy a … (38 percent)

BOTTOM SUMMARIES

  • The music industry owes a lot to technology. But the new millennium has brought slumping sales. Technology now terrifies music executives … (0 percent)
  • BY MICHAEL AMON. At first, the pet food recall didn’t much worry Jack Friedman. His cats love Iams canned food but had never eaten the “cuts and gravy” … (0 percent)
  • In its effort to remain competitive and relevant to today’s new generation of Windows users around the world, Microsoft unveiled on Thursday a new program … (0 percent)
  • Cash tills around the world rang to the tune of Harry Potter over the weekend and the seventh and final book in the … (0 percent)

The Web is the ultimate laboratory for content. It allows us to know, with increasing precision, what content leads to a positive action, and what content leads to the Back button.

The content that works on the Web has one key characteristic: it is customer-centric. The content that doesn’t work on the Web also has one key characteristic: it is organization-centric.

“99 cents per download, no restrictions” is the essence of what people want today. They want an immediate answer to the question: What’s in it for me? They want brutal, pared down content that gets to the point immediately.

Your website is not a murder mystery. It is certainly not a place for we-we content. Short, sharp, second person and active; that’s web content. Get to the point. Then stop.

 

10 responses

  1. Gary says:

    Added on September 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am

    What does “stood out for them” mean exactly?

    Going by the guidelines at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980906.html “Tons of tunes” would surely be a really *bad* headline when shown out of context, e.g. as a link on a news site’s home page?

    Ditto for “Flying off the shelves”. Users may think it’s the best or coolest headline when asked to choose from a selection of possible headlines, but that doesn’t mean it’s the one they would click if they saw it as a link.

  2. Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:

    Added on September 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Gary, I think if it was just a link on it’s own, then it might need to be qualified: “Tons of Tunes: Apple’s iTunes launch”. However, many sites are now using headings like this on their homepages and then different headings on the content page. The New York Times wrote an article on it some time ago entitled: This boring headline is written for Google”.

    I just looked at the BBC homepage right now and one of their headings was: “The Mystic Man”. Then when you click on it and get to the page it’s: “The roar of Rumi - 800 years on”

  3. Confounded says:

    Added on September 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Link in the email pointed to the wrong article (p=59), so I am posting again this time on the right article…

    Uh, I might have missed something, but… What was being tested exactly? And how? And what do the results really mean? Nice numbers thought, makes it sound scientific.

  4. Rick says:

    Added on October 1st, 2007 at 8:37 am

    Interesting article, but surely the Bottom Headings were bottom because they gave the reader all the information he needed without having to click the titles, meaning they were arguably good content?

    Poor old time-starved user didn’t have to go off clicking a title to get the real point.

  5. Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:

    Added on October 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Rick, I’m not so sure. Take the following summary, for example, that got zero votes from 2,500 people.

    “The music industry owes a lot to technology. But the new millennium has brought slumping sales. Technology now terrifies music executives .”

    Nobody cares that technology terrifies music executives.

    I wasn’t sure which ones would work and which ones wouldn’t, but everytime I do this test a small number of headings/summaries will jump to the top, and a whole big bunch will get hardly any votes at all.

  6. Melanie says:

    Added on October 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Another reason why the summaries such as,
    “BY MICHAEL AMON. At first, the pet food recall didn’t much worry Jack Friedman. His cats love Iams canned food but had never eaten the “cuts and gravy” ”
    are at the bottom is because they are written in prose, not inverted pyramid style. That’s just bad newswriting.

    I do agree with you that content should be short, sharp, and to the point. Shorter headings with carefully-selected wording is more intriguing than a long boring title that I might not fully read as I’m scanning down the page.

  7. Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:

    Added on October 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 am

    Melanie, you’re exactly right. All the headings and summaries I tested were from professional publishers with professional writers, many of whom should know better. And there is so much content out there that just goes on and on and is totally organization-centric.

  8. Nick Usborne says:

    Added on October 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    I think one huge problem our industry faces is there are not nearly enough professional writers involved. I was doing a one day workshop for a very large and very well known company last week and went through dozens of pages and emails. Each and every one of them read like a first draft. The same is true of many, many sites. Content creation is rushed and there are too few editors wielding a big stick and making sure that content is taken through a second and third draft before being published.

    Best wishes,

    Nick

  9. Chris Norred says:

    Added on October 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    In a print publication, a creative teaser like “tons of tunes” or “flying off the shelves” has its place. On the Web, I would find it a rare luxury and too much of a risk to click on a mysterious creative teaser link — without context or a friend’s recommendation.
    So, while the top headings stand out, I’m not sure it’s fair to suggest they’re better. The summaries, however, prove your point that readers “want an immediate answer to the question” . As if we needed more proof.
    What’s different in the best summaries? Each of them has a number or a call to action = an immediate answer.

    Thanks for the thoughtful piece.

    Chris

  10. John Fox says:

    Added on October 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    At Salford we’re constantly banging on at our web authors to use plain English and not over complicate their web content. I’m afraid its something of an uphill battle, often successful but sometimes not!

    This is an extract from our web standards:

    Local government speak
    Outside a local authority or other tier of government the words “section”, “division” and “directorate” are often completely meaningless and unintelligible to an external audience and for that reason alone you should avoid usage of such words on your web pages.

    It is better to use “department” or “team” as necessary, but perhaps you should question whether it is really necessary to mention departmental structure information in the first place? Does its inclusion genuinely add value?

    Avoid over-complicating text, improve readability
    Our web site is intended to be used by everyone. Overseas visitors will benefit from simple language as this is easier to understand:

    DON’T SAY: “High-quality learning environments are a necessary precondition for facilitation and enhancement of the ongoing learning process.”

    DO SAY: “Children need good schools if they are to learn properly.”

    See http://www.salford.gov.uk/webstandards-plainenglish for more!

Leave a Reply