There is a great writeup on Before & After web magazine about a designer who was testing which type of design worked better for a Craigslist ad for the Jeep CJ7 he was selling. The premise is that one barebones ad that blandly lists off the features and amenities of the vehicle is not as enticing as the wild-styled alternative which features scribbled features and drawings overlaid on top of a photograph of the vehicle.
The responses were both fascinating to observe for their strong opinions but also how off-base they were. The public consensus based on the comments to the post strongly favored the second option, but it was all based on conjecture and guesstimation, both which turned out to be wrong:
- “If you’re a Jeep/truck person, you’re a little ruff around around the edges . . . so a dirty, ruff ad will sell over a nicely laid out one.”
- “The grungy version (if that’s what you’d call it) wins hands-down. Have seen this type of ad before, and it works well for the right audience.”
- “Grubby, hands down. Jeeps are for getting your hands dirty, or at least feeling like you do. Ad #1 looks like a medical specimen compared to Ad #2.”
- vs. “Not so sure having read all the comments. Both seem okay-ish but nothing to write home about. Really guys, do you think #2 is that good? I mean, what a mess. Maybe us European guys like car ads clean, nice, Volvo-like. I hate scribbles, so ad #1 works fine for me — change the fonts, please!“
Ozeworks takes a crackshot at explaining why it’s not as perfect as it seems, and I agree:
- “Depends on the target demographic. In terms of the one you expect us to say will sell, i.e. the second one, I find the yellow text hard to read, and there is too much of it. So it takes work to find out what is being sold. And we all know people hate putting in effort to understand anything. So while it might be the obvious design choice, that does not mean it will sell.”
While I felt the second option to be more compelling because it tickled my design fancy, I didn’t find it to be as straightforward as I would want and expect from an ad for used car. It turns out, the first version sold it.
The call to action and which ad sold the jeep
There is a great writeup on Before & After web magazine about a designer who was testing which type of design worked better for a Craigslist ad for the Jeep CJ7 he was selling. The premise is that one barebones ad that blandly lists off the features and amenities of the vehicle is not as enticing as the wild-styled alternative which features scribbled features and drawings overlaid on top of a photograph of the vehicle.
The responses were both fascinating to observe for their strong opinions but also how off-base they were. The public consensus based on the comments to the post strongly favored the second option, but it was all based on conjecture and guesstimation, both which turned out to be wrong:
Ozeworks takes a crackshot at explaining why it’s not as perfect as it seems, and I agree:
While I felt the second option to be more compelling because it tickled my design fancy, I didn’t find it to be as straightforward as I would want and expect from an ad for used car. It turns out, the first version sold it.