Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Adult Traffic (NSFW)

---

Short or Long Lander, which do you prefer? (11)

---

So Im running a mobile dating SOI right now, and after running some tests I have 2 landers with the same EPC, except one is a long lander, and one is a short lander.

The stats are something like this:

Short Lander: 27.5% CTR, 11.33% CVR
Long Lander: 20% CTR, 15.3% CVR

The longer lander has a higher CVR because of course there are more steps, but the CTR is much lower likely due to these additional steps. Both landers are the same in every way (headlines, image, design etc) except one has a few more questions than the other.

So in the above case which lander do you prefer to improve? Are you trying to increase the CVR of the short lander or trying to improve the CTR of the long lander?

Thanks in advance.

---

I don't know much about dating offers...

But my hypothesis is that longer landers generally generate higher quality conversions for the advertisers. (Given the fact that visitors statistically showed a higher commitment to fully engage with the lander/offer flow)

So based on this opinion, the advertisers might be happier with more committed visitors that converted.

Other than that, i don't see anything else that should matter as long as the epc is the same

But again, no expert in dating offers.

---

In general CTR is easier to increase than CVR. ^^ upper feedback is quite on point when it comes to quality. If EPC is exact the same I woul run them simultaneously for a while.

---

Yeah, given you're running dating where quality is super-important, I'd say the thing you could do with establishing ASAP is which lander is giving the better-quality leads.

Have a chat with your AM and ask how much data you need to send in order to get a quality check.

Chances are the longer lander sends better leads, but it's worth finding out for sure.

---

As posted above already, the longer lander SHOULD produce higher quality leads ... it's not a 100% rule, cause there aren't any like that, but in majority of cases, it holds true.

In your specific case with 2 LPs both giving you the same EPCs ... normally, I would keep running both of them, just to keep the variety ... but it would make sense to check with the advertisers, sticking just to the longer one might give you additional paybump, which is always a good thing.

---

Just curious, what kind of sample size do you have for these 2 landers? I'd second matuloo, leave it running to avoid lp blindness and at the same time make sure to check with the offer what backs out better in terms of quality. If both are identical, easy call to let them run both.

---

just a bit of off-topic:
common sense wise, SOI should be easier to convert the DOI
did you have a chance to test the two and see if that holds true to Adult-Banner traffic?

---

It holds true everywhere, SOIs convert easier than DOI ... but SOI payouts are also always lower than DOI payouts for the same offer.

---

That's an interesting point.
Come to think of it, if theoretically longer landers produce higher quality conversions it would be interesting to test these landers with more difficult conversion goals.

I don't run dating offers, therefore I am not familiar with the typical conversion goals common in the dating vertical.
But the same could be said on running CPL/CPA offers.

Such as, testing two landers with equal performance on different conversion goals. If quality is indeed better on longer landers, could be worth splitting clicks among offers with different conversion goals, and eventually adapting each lander to a different offer.

e.g:
short lander could potentially give you a hither EPC on SOI/CPL
longer lander could potentially give you a higher EPC on DOI/CPA

Can't know for sure if this is the case here, but interesting thought IMO

---

Yes, you could say that shorter LPs produce less motivated "buyers", but they could still be motivated enough to fill out a short SOI form.

BUT, what matters is the final lead quality i.e. the % of initial members who convert to paying ones .. and if we agree on the premise that short landers result into lower lead quality, you will most likely run into quality problems with the SOI offers too.

Keep one thing in mind, the advertisers will pay you whatever you are able to make for them, minus some margin, they don't care if it's SOI or DOI as long as it's backing out for them.

So to put it really simple, if you send them 100 SOI leads, 10 of them convert and each pays $5, that is $500 minus their share of lets say 20%, so you will get $400/100=$4 per lead.
Now lets use DOI, say you send them 50 DOI leads, 10 of them still convert to paying members at the same $5 rate, you will still get your $400, but in this case it would be $ per lead.
To the advertisers, both situations are pretty much equal, all they care about in the long run, is the revenue per member from your traffic.

---

Some offers have both SOI and DOI flow, which is worth to split test. SOI is in theory a bit easier to be get fraud traffic for, but realistically it shouldn't make too much difference nowadays since the fraudsters are smart enough to confirm the email too.

If there's one thing I could recommend, is test! Some of the biggest campaigns I had were absolutely unlogical in some points, with offers I never even considered to convert actually rocking. But the quoted statement is way too broad, I'm 100% sure that a short lander could produce higher EPCs and better quality on any offer than a long lander - or not

Another thing you gotta keep in mind, CPL or CPA is actually no real difference. Assuming the CPA fires on a non-payment event, like say 3rd message or completing a follow up sign up form, you're just playing an arbitrage game going for CPL or CPA. If CPL backs out and you're able to stay on an offer, you'd stay on the CPA offer as well and vice versa, with the only difference being that there's a higher chance of making more money on CPA ( or revshare ) than with CPL longterm. For the advertiser, all that counts is the uservalue, no matter CPL, CPA, CPC, CPM ^^

The major difference is risk management for the advertiser. CPA/Revshare has way lower risk than CPL, hence often CPL is capped while the other models are not. In CPL the advertiser bets on your quality to back out, on the CPA/Revshare, he's at the same position as you are, paying out once he knows some quality is there.

---

Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Adult Traffic (NSFW)