The Ugly Truth ("Ugly designs sell. Really well.") | Hacker News Reader

The Ugly Truth ("Ugly designs sell. Really well.")

mrgreen.am

Highlights a good point, one which I often wonder about. But there's not much analysis of why ugly sells.

"A large amount of internet users are still afraid of the whole idea internet idea.

This is exactly why ugly websites work.

People trust things more when they look like they were done for the love of it rather than the focusing on sheer profits."

That makes no sense at all. People also trust good design. It makes them feel they are buying from someone who cares and put in the time to make the product and site look great.

But it's hard to tell without lots of data. The real test would be if Google and Amazon looked like Apple and vice versa. Now that would be interesting.

I think the problem is trying to generalize things to all people. Some people, like yourself, see a lousy website and wonder, if the creator won't put in the effort to create a great design, would she really put in the effort to make a great product. Other people, like myself, see a snazzy website and wonder if the creator is trying to blind my with style to cover her lack of substance. I think that the author's main point is that there's enough people following my heuristic that a blind charge toward top quality design isn't always warranted.

Actually, I'm mostly in the second category too. Err... that's why I like Google. I've just got lots of feedback on my products from people in the first category. But I'm aware that people don't always act as they say.

One known reason why ugly marketing sells is that ugly makes you think low prices. You probably won't sell many Bang and Olufsen stereos with an ugly ad. But you could very well sell a lot of low cost chinese clones, because those looking for low cost will click those ads and ignore the elegant ones.

Google's redesign has them looking better and more like Apple. I used Google Apps before but now that they've been streamlined they no longer look like they could crash at any moment.

It's not so much that pretty designs don't sell, or that ugly designs sell really well. It's that experienced online and direct marketers understand the crucial elements for a high converting page (i.e. the call to action, the bold headline, the right copy, the legible font, the right contrasting colors, etc. etc.), and they A/B test these elements till they feel the page is optimized. The result is often a hodgepodge of a page that looks disjointed, but converts really well.

What these online and direct marketers tend to over look is the final step in which you keep these important marketing elements but work with a quality designer to smooth out the edges and iterate on the broader design, without losing conversions (the result if often an even better converting page). But there are four reasons that online and direct marketers tend to overlook this part: 1. It requires a little more effort/time and money (why go through the trouble if the page converts well as it is?); 2. They tend to overlook the long-term value of branding (Why care if we’re making a ton of money right now? This is even more the case among affiliate marketers who don’t even own the brands.); 3. Like Mr. Green, they think the page converts well BECAUSE it's ugly (Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke, right?); and 4) These marketers tend to copy other marketers a lot as ethics isn't the highest priority for them, at least not more than making money. (If they're doing x, it must be working) Hence, they further reiterate the ugly design mindset.

"...for some categories".

As revorad said, ugly ads definitely work for some categories but there's no real consensus why. What categories?

Seems to be self-service C2C sites (CL, PoF) and low-end consumer products (diets, affiliate stuff) in industries that feel amateurish/scammy at the best of times - so is the poor design a trust builder only when it feels like an individual has spent money on the design?

Is there a point where this tips and poor design breaks trust rather than grows it? Will a web development company with terrible design convert better for some clients? Lawyers? Hospitals?

While I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, the author is starting with outlier examples and applying a cause/effect relationship in a global way, ignoring the other factors for their outlier success.

It's lazy journalism at best.

See also: the low budget 5-Hour Energy TV ads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdoyYMTUJM

what

Reply on news.ycombinator.com