Post by huangshi715 on Feb 15, 2024 10:06:53 GMT
Drink the Kool-aid of what you sell/do. Don’t have a poorly designed site when selling site design. #PageFights — Nicole Mintiens (Tregesy) August 8, 2014 And Peep really let them have it for failing to drink their own Kool-Aid: “I made my very first website in 1994. It looked liked this. Any 30$ theme in Themeforest would look better.” Buuuuuurn! #PageFights — Tag Team Design (tagteamdesign) August 8, 2014 To add insult to injury, Page Fights’ producer Tommy pointed out that although the company advertises responsive web design . Ouch.
4. The CTA doesn’t inspire action Though Oli praised QC Makeup Academy’s Switzerland Email List landing page for having the best headline the judges had seen thus far, he said their call to action button got lost in the sea of other possible actions. qc-makeup-academy-attention-ratio With an attention ratio of at least 60:1, Oli suggested removing the nav and footer entirely to bring the page closer to the ideal attention ratio of 1:1. “The ratio of what you can do to what you should do is too high” – great way to explain the point of CTAs! #PageFights — Aviva Pinchas (in_a_pinch) August 8, 2014 But Peep found the call to action on Myagi’s landing page even less inspiring.
On its own, the “Train up to 50 staff for free now” button copy isn’t terrible. The problem Peep had with it was the lack of message match with the headline: miyagi-headline For Peep, the momentum created by leading with “increase sales” in the headline falls flat with a CTA button that promises to “train staff.” It’s a pretty underwhelming leap and it doesn’t make leads want to click on the call to action button. 5. The unique value proposition isn’t clear Though a unique value proposition is one of the five essential elements of a high-converting landing page, poorly-defined UVPs kept cropping up on contestants’ landing pages. For Peep, Snap Agency’s UVP got lost in the keyword-stuffed wall of text: “I read the copy, and it isn’t written for humans. It’s keyword stuffing.
4. The CTA doesn’t inspire action Though Oli praised QC Makeup Academy’s Switzerland Email List landing page for having the best headline the judges had seen thus far, he said their call to action button got lost in the sea of other possible actions. qc-makeup-academy-attention-ratio With an attention ratio of at least 60:1, Oli suggested removing the nav and footer entirely to bring the page closer to the ideal attention ratio of 1:1. “The ratio of what you can do to what you should do is too high” – great way to explain the point of CTAs! #PageFights — Aviva Pinchas (in_a_pinch) August 8, 2014 But Peep found the call to action on Myagi’s landing page even less inspiring.
On its own, the “Train up to 50 staff for free now” button copy isn’t terrible. The problem Peep had with it was the lack of message match with the headline: miyagi-headline For Peep, the momentum created by leading with “increase sales” in the headline falls flat with a CTA button that promises to “train staff.” It’s a pretty underwhelming leap and it doesn’t make leads want to click on the call to action button. 5. The unique value proposition isn’t clear Though a unique value proposition is one of the five essential elements of a high-converting landing page, poorly-defined UVPs kept cropping up on contestants’ landing pages. For Peep, Snap Agency’s UVP got lost in the keyword-stuffed wall of text: “I read the copy, and it isn’t written for humans. It’s keyword stuffing.