Long versus Short Copy Split Testing Results
Presume. Assume. Presuppose. Surmise, Guess…
…Arrogance.
The results of this A/B Split test SUGGEST a lot of things. But they PROVE something even more profound:
Conventional Wisdom is for Suckers.
Before I drew, or in this post draw any conclusions, let me give you the background, show the stats, and then together we can walk down the deliciously bewildering path of stupefication.
The GOAL:
From email messages, find a way to INCREASE Click Throughs to Blog Posts, Offers, Squeeze Pages, etc.
The TEST:
An A/B Split test to 10% of my email list, where The CONTROL Email used LONG Copy with a Call to Action and the B-Test used SHORT Copy with a Call to Action.
All other variables were identical (Email Template, Font Size, Treatment of Hyperlinked Call to Action) except ONE very minor detail in the subject line. More on that in a moment…
The OFFER:
The Call to Action was to visit a blog post that offered Tips on Maximizing Landing Page Conversion (You can view that post here).
The TEST CANDIDATES:
Below is a Screen Shot of the CONTROL. The reason that I assigned this version the CONTROL designation is because, as a rule, my email copy is usually on the longer side. Besides potentially boring my subscribers to death with my long, drawn out musings on whatever topic I’m talking about, the fact is (After MUCH reflection), I’ve drawn some conclusions about my ever-present Long-Copy “Style” that definitely impacts the results of this test (More on that below).
Here’s the Long Copy:
Notice the “You’ll Discover” sub-head. After it are 7 bullet points designed to give the reader a preview of the content of the post.
Now, here’s the SHORT COPY:
The ONLY difference is NO BULLET POINTS.
The test was sent to 10% of my “general” subscriber list – meaning, pretty much people with all types of interests. So, there is a mix of demographics in terms of recipients.
The TEST RESULTS:
BEFORE I show you screen caps and bust out the calculator, please heed the following:
Do NOT draw any conclusions on the Analytics alone. I know that it’s a labor and chore to read my soap-box quality summaries and thoughts, but in this case, please DO READ what follows. My conclusions might not be 100% accurate, but I swear to you that they will impact how you think about this little jaw-dropper.
Having equivocated responsibly, lets show you what happened…
First, let me show you a blow up of the most important stats:
The FIRST set of numbers, going vertically, represent The SHORT COPY.
The SECOND set of numbers represent the CONTROL – The LONG COPY.
(I know that’s a little backwards, but that’s just the way that iContact displays the data.)
STAT Results:
The LONG COPY (Second Set of Numbers) got 1,295 OPENS and 369 CLICKS. That’s a Click Through Rate of 28.4%
The SHORT COPY (First Set of Numbers) got 1,235 OPENS and 445 CLICKS. That’s a Click Through Rate of 36.0%
That’s a 21.8% INCREASE in Click Through Rate.
(Cue Playback of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song”)
Let’s get some perspective (i.e “connect the dots”) – here’s what that could (and did) mean to this email effectiveness:
To 10% of my subscribers, the SHORT COPY got 76 MORE clicks. Multiply that times 10 to get the results of sending it to my full list and you get…
…760 MORE Clicks.
Let’s blue-sky for a second:
Assume a 1% close rate as being typical to a Money Offer, and that could result in 7 MORE sales. Go ahead and insert any number you want for a profit calculation – lets be conservative and say $50. $50 times 7 = $350.00 MORE profit…
…for writing LESS COPY.
But wait… There’s MORE… (And then, less.)
First, I gleaned some potentially inconsequential information for the SUBJECT Line of this test.
Let me explain: iContact’s A/B Split Test features are relatively new, and in MY Humble (Heh) Opinion, have a little bit of usability development left before they’re 100% awesome.
For example, you can’t RE-USE emails from a previous test.
Also (And this is where I discovered the Subject Line weirdness), it’s VERY hard to differentiate tests when the subject lines are the SAME. Meaning, if you want to test BODY COPY or the content of an email without testing the subject line, it’s almost impossible to tell which version is which.
So, this is what I did – I added some punctuation to the end of the SHORT COPY version so I could tell the difference.
Notice that Test A – The SHORT COPY has a period at the end of the subject line. I put a period to help me remember that the SHORT COPY was “to the POINT, PERIOD“. I know, I have to do weird little memory exercises to keep myself organized. But the point (har) is actually this:
…The Subject line with the PERIOD at the end of it earned 1235 OPENS from 5,508 contacts delivered. That’s an Open Rate of 22.4%
Now, take a look at this:
The Subject line WITHOUT the PERIOD (The LONG COPY) earned 1296 OPENS from 5,470 contacts delivered. That’s an Open Rate of 23.7%
That’s about a 5.5% increase in Open Rate.
NO – it’s NOT huge. But, it’s interesting. I’ll discuss why below, because I think it indicative of an overall concept call “Transderivational Search”. MmmmHmmm. So SEXY!
Test Thoughts and “Conclusions” (I.e. How the HELL did THIS happen?)
In this test, the Short Copy WON for Click Throughs (CTR), hands-DOWN. Personally, I think any result that improves your effectiveness more than 10% is a winner. This test improved results by OVER 20%.
But now, the real reason is WHY?
I mentioned that “Conventional Wisdom is for Suckers”, and I think you’ll agree that MOST people think that Long Copy, especially the kind of copy where you list out the BENEFITS of what a reader is about to recieve, is generally thought to be MORE effective in getting a “Conversion”.
But – is it more effective in getting a “CLICK”? Let’s think about that:
1. The AVERAGE Google Search Engine Result is less than 30 WORDS Long.
2. Google Ad Words Results are about the SAME length.
3. The Average Banner Ad is less than 10 WORDS Long.
4. Amazon Product LIST Results are an average of 32 WORDS Long.
And the ONLY thing you can do with any of the above is “CLICK” to get more information.
Do they know something that I don’t know? Almost assuredly YES! But still, I have to ask myself (As I look disappointedly into the mirror) – What ELSE could be causing these results to defy convention wisdom?
Here are some guesses (heh):
1. My copy sucks Rocks?
Don’t cry for me friend – there are absolutely days where the words that flow out of my finger-tips onto the LCD screen leave me smiling like a drunk lottery winner.
But in this case, the Bullets that I used in the LONG COPY were not exactly “Kern or Carlton-esque”. No, they were not hideous, but perhaps they could have been a smidgen better.
So, maybe the reader just decided that there was NOTHING appealing in the Longer Copy, and decided to surf back over to TMZ.com.
2. My Subscribers LOATHE my long-winded-ness (Getting Warmer)?
You know those little remote controls that come with an Apple Product? They’re about the size of a thin pack of gum, and they have, like FOUR buttons.
Yeah, well – on any given day, I could do a full-length webinar about one.
It’s a curse. My mouth “Runneth ON and OVER”
So, maybe a loyal subscriber is actually CRINGING at the thought of reading yet another one of my LONG winded, over-wrought emails. But they can’t help themselves, because if they just open it up, they might get to see one of the many possible train-wreaks that illustrates my communication style – and people love a good self-implosion.
Heh. Too much? Well, more to the point, people are more starved for time than they have EVER been, so maybe the extra 18 seconds it took them to read the bullets made the difference between clicking through vs. marking as SPAM?
Yeah, there’s a lot of reasons – but ONE in particular makes the most sense out of them all. And it might also explain the 5.5% increase in the subject line results.
Introducing “Transderivational Search”
Transderivational Search is essentially about OPENING a LOOP of Uncertainty. And if you do it right, the loop can be SO strong that the person subjected to a Transderivational Search feels STRONGLY compelled to CLOSE the loop and end the Uncertainty.
So, they look for a way to end the Uncertainty – and in the case of this test, they OPENED and/or CLICKED.
With the SHORT COPY example, there were NO indications about WHAT actually maximizes a Landing Page. Just reading that copy, the reader was left with a very uncertain and possibly curious feeling about how to maximize a landing page.
Maybe their thinking:
- There are actually ways to increase the conversion of a landing page?
- This blog post will actually give me some TIPS that will help?
…and most importantly:
- What if I’m doing something WRONG on my landing pages?
Versus the LONG Copy. The subscriber reads that and maybe they see a list of bullet points that they recognize…
Maybe the ones that decided NOT to click were thinking:
- Yeah, I know about Headlines…
- Yeah, I know about Bullets…
- Yeah, I know about Calls to Action…
- Okay – nothing here that I haven’t heard of… Back to TMZ.com
The LONG Copy creates LESS Uncertainty. And Less Uncertainty means LESS Urgency.
Less Urgency means… Less Clicks.
Now, what about the Subject line?
The period means END OF STATEMENT. That’s it – and in a subject line, it’s represents the END of the thought.
NO punctuation IS AN OPEN LOOP – when we’re taught to write, we’re taught that the end of a thought gets punctuation – and the presence of punctuation means END OF IDEA.
Maybe, just maybe the absence of punctuation in the subject line vibrated some latent 4th grade psychology in our learned experience that COMPELS us to COMPLETE the thought by opening the email and seeing what’s next.
Or maybe, it’s just one of those statistical aberrations that has no place in high-brow conversation. And that’s a good thing, because I am just fine being the repository of all things ridiculous. ![]()
Final Thoughts (And some more important cautions)
I want you to imagine a turbulent ocean.
Multitudes of Angry Waves, with piercing cold wind blasting their tops into frothy white crests. Chaos.
Then, all of the sudden, you spot a place of calm. Mirror-like flat seas of solitude and comfort.
With those two images in your brain, consider this:
Constant Communication, like the kind that I have with my email subscribers, creates turbulence. I (arrogantly) think that every email I send to my subscribers is important enough that I unleash all of the little tricks and tools that I’ve learned over the past 11 years to persuade them to OPEN and CLICK.
Now, all of the sudden, I send them a communication where the subject line is STRAIGHT UP. No guessing as to what’s inside that email - it’s to the point “Landing Page Tips to Maximize Conversions”.
“Wow!”, they’re thinking – “Pretty straight-forward…” And there is their first glimpse of calm seas.
Then, they read one of the shortest emails I’ve ever sent.
Again, in the absence of my typical “persuading” copy – they see CLARITY. ”Here’s what I’ve got (“Tips”) – Here’s what I want you to do (Click)”
Calm. Smooth. Flat Seas. Set a course for OVER THERE.
Here’s my point:
The SHORT COPY worked so well because it was VERY different than from what I usually send my subscribers. So different and economical that it’s sheer existence was a breath of “calm and safe”.
Which leads me to a final warning.
If my subscribers were USED to getting SHORT COPY all the time, there’s a greater than ZERO percent chance that the short copy would become the turbulent oceans, and the long copy would represent the smooth and safe seas.
What’s also at play here is an emergent property called “Pattern Interrupt”.
But that’s a topic for another post…
See what I did right there? ![]()
Thanks for reading this. It was a lot of fun to write, and I hope you enjoyed the ride.
Do me a favor? Tell me what you thought in the comments (Facebook Comments Prefereed), and if you want to share it, Tweet, Like, Stumble, Digg It, etc… I’ll keep publishing more.
“I’m looking for the unexpected. I’m looking for things I’ve never seen before.”
~ Robert Mapplethorpe
Thanks for your time today!
Ole Cuzin Andy
P.S. In reading some of the comments, I want to shout-out to and thank the people that say that they open just because it’s me that’s sending the email. Seriously, that’s awfully nice to hear.
Having said that – remember the point of the test – GET CLICK THROUGHS. And while I am just humbled that people click without reading when they get a email from me – lots of folks carefully consider something called “Satisfice”, which is a calculation of value vs. time spent that everyone does before they click a link . Like I said, there is a LOT that you can read into any test – and YES, no single test is enough to draw a rule from. I’m just trying to demonstrate some of the potential influencing factors that contribute to user behavior.
And wow, that last paragraph sounded like I had Thesaurus.com open when I wrote it. Sorry. :)













Andy. Thanks for the insights.
I will have to test this for myself.
Can’t wait to try it.
I am truly impressed with your passionate, joyful, skill inspiring energizing ways with what you do. Peace
You just said a mouthful there, Andy
Andy,
In a world of idiotic noise, you are always a “Mirror-like flat seas of solitude and comfort” to me no matter how many characters you type.
Ciao
Great post Andy. This is not only interesting, but useful information. Keep ‘em coming cuz.
I have long assumed the same thing,and try to keep things short.
I also would be curious as to your unsubscribe rates with the two emails. I find that with my crew, (us), that I the longer the post, the higher the unsubscribe rates.
A way around this I picked up from you.
A short email, with a link to a video, will get virtually no unsubscribes.
Thanks boss,
dk
OMG i was one of the ones who clicked on the long copy example, and i enjoyed the post – i even printed it out so i could read it away from my screen.
and i mostly send short form email to my list ….
Great post Andy
Yours is one of the handful of blogs i read
Brilliant idea that should definitely increase increase our conversation rate! Thanks for your creative ingenuity!
Great insights there. I think even todays Video stuff is around 30 minutes long where as it makes me tune out even to a good offer etc. Just take Kajabi offer, sounds great but was really long. Could you do a test for Short and Long Video and the best one being Short Copy verus Short Video and show us the results, would be interesting thanks
Sheer brilliance, ol’ cuzin Andy! Thanks a bunch for sharing your wisdom filled insights.
Thanks for the great tips. Lots of ideas forming in my head right now and I guess my currect sales letter could be a bit too long as well.
Thanks again
Hey Cuzin Andy,
I agree with you that we should test things but I’m not so sure one test is really enough to be sure. Because there are a lot of variables with every test and every person you’re sending it to.
After reading this post I went back to my e-mails and found the short one with a period at the end unopened. Sorry! My e-mails are backing up on me with over 1200 waiting to be read.
Normally I read all yours because I love your humor. But, it wouldn’t matter if it was long or short if I had the time I would have opened it. But, short is good too.
Andy, I think you just made an error…
Those are RAW clicks… Not Unique visitors. Those contacts clicked multiple times or commonly known as “double clicked”…
Look at the other numbers… It shows for the long copy you had more “contacts” showing up to your landing page.
It’s a small difference, 40% long copy vs 36% short copy.
The long copy received 4% more unique visitors.
The long copy beat the short copy by the numbers you presented here.
Rick, it’s not an error – I was measuring opens and clicks, not uniques – and the math ratios are still the same. But I’m glad you’re reading it so closely.
Thank you Andy. I believe we have a clear winner here.
BUT, is one split test enough? If I can recall correctly, at MMF Frank mentioned something about length being proportional with pricing (i.e. high ticket items having lengthier copy) or something to that extend…
What do you think?
No…. One split test is NEVER enough. And brother, I test EVERY email I send out. I’ll Always Be TESTING something.
I read anything you tell me to Andy (because you earned your stripes with me a long time ago!).
Easy testing is a great way to catch more of the low hanging fruit and definitely puts paid to any opinion. I agree it’s best done over time to get some sense of what “your tribe” best responds to.
One of our lists responds really poorly to short emails (and your bullet point email would be an example of a short email for us!), but they looove long, info emails (and will reply with “bravo; more etc”). They also won’t comment on blogs and struggle with anything technical.
“They” are late-middle aged women – I suspect are time poor and would rather read (and yes, print) and email than click through to a site, leave comments etc (but hey, this is my opinion talking now).
Split Testing: Makes ANYTHING good if you do it enough!
Thanks Andy (Oh that landing page article was excellent too!)
Short is better for me. I’ve read marketing crap for 7 years and I really value people not wasting my time with sales gimmicks. How much have you hit your list?
That’s the factor you’re ignoring – demographics of your list and how experienced those people are at reading copy.
Thanks Scott – I’m not ignoring anything – this test was designed to get more clicks, that’s it. It was designed to NOT be influenced by list age or previous performance, simply because I would not have those demographics to work with when I’m buying traffic. Make sense?
Short copy in the email – long copy on the webpage. For me the email is just the indicator of whether I want to read more from the site.
Hi Andy,
Great as usual. I agree with Robert..knowing your targeted audience is helpful in determining if long or short is better.
I agree that split-testing is good but it has its limitations. Too bad the split testing couldn’t tell you some demographics of the person doing the clicking. Were they old, young, man, woman, over/under 30, over/under 65, etc..
Could a usability study on long and short emails provide you with SOME of the necessary information that is missing from split-testing? Some of the guesswork is answered by doing this type of testing. Is it feasible and worth the effort? Depends on what you are looking for. So doing both types of testing is even better.
Why a usability study? During the usability study the participant is asked to speak out loud their thoughts (which is recorded, along with their clicking, and their facial expressions). So, What could you really learn from listening and watching participants as they receive, read, and click on long and short emails? It could prove to be very interesting study indeed.
PS. I personally do not like LONG LAUNCH emails but tend to GLAZE over parts that I am not interested in…. hmmm …the usability study would bear this out…
I do tend to read LONG blogs if they offer interesting information.
Thanks Andy for a great post as always
Sueebeee
I feel kinda weird being used as a guinea pig and then being explained to about what my behavior means;) I’m trying to process how this fact will affect my future clickings and openings, hmmmmmm.
Personally, I love the quirky youness in your posts Andy and knowing I’m part of your experiments makes me want click everything you send me! Of course I was that kid that loved those psych experiments in college, so don’t consider me a good slice of your demographic;)
Peace.
Hi Andy
I see what you’re saying about not having certain demographics when buying traffic.
The most influencial variable I can think of here is.. That we know you.
It’ll be interesting to see how bought traffic responds, but
with you on the open loop thing.
Awesome test.
Jose
Good insights Andy…I opened because of you..clicked because of you and I was interested in the headline topic…did not read much text in email.. Short presentations are better for me….. after into subject, then I will read more. Read your evaluation above…Must confess…I like the video with Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” the most. Data is needed, but I could sign along with the video.
I’ve test long and short; with images and plain text; different headline ideas… and my findings are that headlines are uniform – they must always compel the reader to open, of course.
With the body copy though, there’s a time and place for brevity and it usually is not when I’m offering something to buy. Rather, it’s when I’m randomly pontificating about some element of UK horse racing or other such immaterial detritus.
Interesting test, all the same, Andy. And yes, I’ll look forward to the insights on ‘pattern interrupt’, which is a cool technique for demanding attention!
Best,
Matt
Thanks a lot for the great information, Andy.
Definitely some things I will keep in mind when sending out my next email…
Higher conversions AND I have to write less? Sweet. I hope this proves to be true. Thanks for the read.
If you actually had something to sell, it would be interesting to know the final conversion rate of people who clicked through, having already read the bullets, versus those who hadn’t.
Also, I would like to see more tests as to whether the “full stop” result was actually statistically significant, or just a minor variance due to the small sample population.
I love to share new info and this is new for me thanks for giving some thing this is simple but informative thanks for this one.
Andy – had you considered the problem IS the bullets.
Blind bullets – that state the benefit, not the feature, but that is not what you did.
The bullets seem to say “good headline, write second person, enhance with bullets etc etc” just sounds like the usual yada yada yada, and the busy reader will think. Know that stuff, dont need to read it , and move on to the next.
On the other hand, for second person for example better might be..
“The trick all top copywriters use to make you think that they are just talking to you – corporate websites just don’t do this”
or something.
The point is the bullets don’t leave any mystery, which is what people make
I am far more likely to click if I saw bullets like.
” One simple change to button text that made a 23% increase in sales!”
I would love to see the results if you ran that test again but with good blind bullets. I think the long copy could win in that case.
[...] Check out his test results and see for yourself: Andy Jenkins, Long vs. Short Copy Split Testing Results. [...]
Andy,
This is the first time I have seen a test of this type done. I haven’t been trying my hand at internet marketing that long and I found this analysis very useful. Thanks for sharing it and updating it as well.
Derek