Comments on: Should You Use Large Images on Category Pages?

By: Dave Lindberg

Dave Lindberg — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:30:47 +0000

The emphasis on testing is the real take-away from this post. I’ve seen too many instances where the marketing “experts” (that’s us) have been surprised by which image actually performs the best. Our opinions are just that — and until they’re tested, they’re of little value.

That said, I agree with Jason that any product image which doesn’t link to a sales page is an opportunity wasted.

By: Toy Store

Toy Store — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:53:11 +0000

Whoa. That picture on NARS’s homepage is downright disturbing. I know the fashion industry does that often, but for a makeup site you think they’d go with something, well, prettier. The current image is better in terms of the model’s face, at least. Though I’m not sure about the carpet hairstyle in the wooly bear eyebrows… LOL

By: Ecommerce Blog

Ecommerce Blog — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:47:44 +0000

A smaller image directly featuring (and linking to) products for sale might help Arden B. I can’t help but wonder what the purpose of the picture is? Charity for the web designer’s out-of-work photographer brother? It’s a nice picture, she’s a pretty girl, but what’s the point?

I think it also depends on how much brand awareness your site already has. Pottery Barn does this a lot:

http://www.potterybarn.com/shop/holiday-decor/index.cfm?cm_type=gnav

But even their site has a purpose to the large flash file – directing people through to their gift guide. And since I know Pottery Barn, I’m likely to spend time browsing, whereas I might not do so on a site that’s one of a dozen that look just like it and sell the same thing.

By: Joseph Yi

Joseph Yi — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:11:18 +0000

Great post.

Definitely took away some useful information that I can apply to my own work.

Look forward to more!

By: Jason Billingsley

Jason Billingsley — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:22:28 +0000

I think the point is, SHE is the most attractive but SHE isn’t selling anything. The image leads to nowhere, has no messaging, and is generally a waste of space. Attracting is often distracting when the focus is off the main action. Ironically, they have since changed the category image and it now has a message, and some even link *gasp* to the corresponding product the model is wearing.

So key thing to take away… if you use an attractive image/model/offer, make sure it links to a desirable action.

By: Michael Straker

Michael Straker — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:25:40 +0000

namer,

I too found the Narden B. image attractive, if rather too large. (The Nars image I find a bit unsettling: she looks like she’s made of wax.)

But the fact that our subjective reactions to these images vary so much just underscores Linda’s main point. The only way to be sure is to do a test.

By: namer.ca

namer.ca — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:52:52 +0000

here is an independent third-party opinion from a first time commenter.

I really like the Arden Website Page, I too think a little too much real estate being taken up, a somewhat shorter image achieving a balance between the no image vs big image would be a better fit.

AS far as the commentary on the type of image being used (the dark background and model being depressive?) i think you are reading too much into it the picture… WTF?

That website image is the most attractive image on your front page blog, which caught my interest and led to further reading, how could it have negative impact on conversion?

By: News: Everything-e

News: Everything-e — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:38:07 +0000

Instant Clarity on Common Website Problems…

Click here to view the embedded video. Get Elastic ’s recent post on reducing friction kicks butt…

By: Kristen

Kristen — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:25:15 +0000

I agree heartily. Once the customer has chosen a category, they want to view products…not lifestyle imagery.