As we\u2019ve struggled with low conversion numbers at The Cost Savings Guy (CSG), it has become increasingly clear that our biggest problem is site design. We purposely created\u00a0CSG<\/a> with multiple ways to enter potential areas of interest and just as many to demonstrate the site\u2019s value. While this made sense to us as designers, it doesn\u2019t seem to have had the same effect on site visitors \u2013 and I\u2019ve concluded that it\u2019s not the way to build sales.<\/p>\n Even though users engage with the service, this design flaw seemingly prevents them from moving through the complete process \u2013 to the point where a sale occurs. We lose numerous prospects every day.<\/p>\n To address the issue, I\u2019ve adopted a two-pronged approach:<\/p>\n First, I have consciously worked on my inner attitude.\u00a0 Our design reflected the advice of lots of talented people. At the same time, it violated some of my personal \u201crules\u201d from high-converting earlier ventures about simplicity and moving visitors to clear next steps.<\/p>\n It would be easy for me to play a \u201cblame game\u201d around our current issues. However, this approach would be unproductive and would violate what is, for me, a central rule of entrepreneurship (and life in general):\u00a0 You must believe you are responsible for everything that happens to you.\u00a0If not, it\u2019s too easy to fail.<\/p>\n Second, I looked for sites that effectively take a potentially complex product or service and make it simple. Examining and studying how other sites work is perhaps the most cost-effective means of understanding your own errors. It\u2019s one thing to say your site is too complex. It\u2019s another to contrast it with sites that have overcome the limitations you face.<\/p>\n Of course, one of the dangers in this I-like-it-so-let\u2019s-do-it approach is you never know whether what appears effective on the surface actually works. Nonetheless, an in-depth study of sites that have similar issues or problems as yours inevitably gives you valuable insights and ideas for experimental changes.<\/p>\n In undertaking this effort, I made the decision to look hard at two different types of sites: BillShrink.com (which, from a broad perspective, offers a service similar to ours) and SlideRocket.com (which is in an unrelated industry).<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what I learned from them:<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At both sites, visitors know exactly what each service does and how it works within the first 10 seconds of landing.\u00a0 While these sites may offer complex services under the hood, they hide that. The user experience is straightforward.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Both sites move the user forward with a growing sense of anticipation. Prospects grow curious about \u201cwhat happens next\u201d. This is unquestionably difficult, but it may be the key to success. Creating curiosity among today\u2019s jaded consumers is a monumental feat.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 My best guess is that these sites were built\u00a0using what I have started to call the 80\/50 rule. Design your site and content – and then cut 80 percent of it. Now, take the remaining site content and cut another 50 percent. With short consumer attention spans, each page needs to provide relevant details or functionality – and nothing more. The natural inclination of almost every site designer and service creator is to provide too much information.<\/p>\n So, the challenge we now face is implementing these principles as they apply to our service. I\u2019m curious: When you look at your own site, how do you score on these three principles and do you think they matter?<\/p>\n Image by <\/em>tantek<\/a> via Flickr<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n![\"change\"](\"http:\/\/venturebeat.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/change.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n