I'd like that better if the images in the sprite weren't cutting off your arms when you flail them. Maybe you can make an image where you look less rectangular.
You could also measure what happens when you introduce just a normal image beside the icon, to separate "what do you look like" and "fun effect" factors.
Are people just clicking to see what happens though?
I shouldn't have to spell out the obvious to HN: an increase in clicks because of blind curiosity rather than an increase in clicks because the value proposition is better understood is meaningless.
It's initially meaningless - in terms of converting visitors to consumers of your offerings. But surely like a loss-leader it can still be seen as part of a funnel to conversions to active users/consumers.
Yep, it really does seem to work. At least it worked for 2 of our customers who increased their conversions by 50% and 100% respectively just by adding human faces.
Thanks to 37 Signals publishing their split test results for Highrise's landing page, we learned that adding a picture of individuals will in fact increase conversions [1].
If you're interested in learning about the importance of personality in branding and marketing, check this book out - Personality Not Included [2]
I love the idea. Might want to make the radius a bit bigger though. I didn't realize it was going to do anything until you explicitly told me to check it out (my mouse was ~200px from the left side, scrolling w/ the wheel).
I'd argue that the real kicker is motion associated with mouse location to draw the user in... This trick has been around for ages, though you definitely did apparently find a crafty implementation.
I'm left wondering whether this increase was due to (a) being memorable/different, (2) having personality and "fun", or (c) drawing the user in with motion association.
I think the reason there's a sudden interest/spike is coz it's it's strange/new/funky.
It's kind of similar to the "You should follow me on twitter." which supposedly inc. ppl. doing it. But I think the initial increase was just interest coz of the strangeness/quirkiness of the statement. Once everyone starts doing it, it will loose it's uniqueness flair and ppl. will just start liking/following as they normally did.
A few years ago, at my previous employer (the one that was bought by my current employer), the consultants responsible for redesigning the company Web site walked us through the new home page, describing the rationale behind various elements. The link to a video describing the company’s products had a head-shot of the company’s VP of Marketing on it, because (the consultant explained) having a woman’s face on a home page increased the click-through rate.
Then the company missed its sales targets and had to lay off a third of its staff... including that VP of Marketing.
I'm going to sound like a broken record but I have to: if this had been A/B tested, either a) it would have been averted or b) we would have good reason to know, with statistical confidence, that despite that X came before Y, X did not in fact cause Y.
Anecdotally, faces have worked really, really well for some people. (Specific example coming at my Business of Software talk tomorrow, so I can't spoil it, but it will be livestreamed and have slides posted.)
In fairness, I think the circumstances leading up to the layoffs were not something that a better Web site could have prevented. The company was trying to expand into new markets with very different requirements than our previous customers, but it was spending more to acquire the new customers than it was actually receiving from them in revenue. Then the recession hit, and the investors decided that they would rather cash in their chips than double-down.
While it does depend on proximity to the RSS button, it doesn't actually require the user to roll over it for the image to respond to their input. (In Google Chrome.)
His method might increase clicks in the aggregate, but I wonder what the backlash is against other people.
Personally, every time I read one of the "You should follow me on Twitter here" callouts, my response is very close to "Go to hell, don't presume to tell me what to do." While of course I can't remember everyone who's used that stupid canard at this point, ceteris paribus it's a behavior that I think would greatly decrease my interest in working with or buying something from 'em. 'Cause its douchey.
The article doesn't present it as an absolute. The article just presents it as a humorous data point that leads into a discussion of how you should keep track of this kind of thing instead of just winging it.
