Another reason for simple two-column websites

July 20, 2010 by JD · 1 Comment
Filed under: Blogging, Internet Marketing, Musings, Site Build It 

I spent the night in the hospital following a procedure that is helping me kick this cancer’s butt and did not bring my MacBook Pro with me. I’ve been on Facebook and browsing the web using Safari on my iPod Touch.

I’m able to view most sites (except those that rely on Flash) on my iPod, and I assume that they are viewable on other mobile devices, too.

One thing I really noticed was that sites with three or more columns are significantly harder to read on my iPod than simpler two-column sites.

Most of my sites have been simple two-column sites with the navigation in the left column (and maybe some money-making links) and the main content in the wider right column.

Most of my income is generated by in-context text links in the content column.

A lot of people think those sites are old-fashioned and, as one critic said, “so 20th century.”

It’s true that sites like MurphyGold.com and AYearFromNow.com are plain and look like they are wasting real estate on large monitors. I have been encouraged, repeatedly, to make them wider and add another column.

I don’t intend to do either.

Why?

It’s true that I prefer three columns for my blogs, but that isn’t for your benefit, dear reader. It’s for the search engines and me. By visiting one of my blogs, I can scan the various RSS feeds in the left and right columns and see if I need to visit another site and do something there.

There is some evidence in my site stats that those links bring in more readers through the search engines.

However, my three column sites are not moneymakers. It doesn’t work for me, even though others have reported good results.

When I have tested moving Google Adsense ads from the content column into a third column on the right, income has always dropped dramatically. The same is true for both text- and graphic-links. Both perform better in the content column in a two-column format.

I don’t know if that’s because most people ignore the right-most column or if they have more ad blindness in a column that normally contains mostly ads.

My best sites for generating income have always been rather plain sites that are easy to navigate and have few, if any, distractions. They don’t have the eye candy that lots of people like, but those aren’t the people who click my links and help me pay the bills.

(Thank you to those of you who do!)

For many sites, perhaps the bells and whistles, multiple images and photos, and a plethora of ads do generate more income for them. I assume that some of them have tested the results they get from the changes they make.

For me and the products I recommend, simpler is demonstrably better. I have proof based on research into visitor numbers, bounce rates, conversion rates, and income to back this up.

So, returning to my initial idea, I think the simple sites will do better for me for people who visit my sites using cellphones and other mobile devices, and will continue to perform well for people browsing on their larger computers. I’ll be tracking this as well as I can in the next few months.

Anecdotally, I know that there are sites to which I won’t return when I’m using my iPod, because they are simply too hard to navigate.

Perhaps some of those sites have mobile feeds, but, unless they make it immediately obvious early in their navigation menu, I won’t go digging for it. I’ll just go to a different site that presents comparable information in a way I want to see it.

I’m perfectly willing for people who don’t like my old-fashioned, two-column, plain sites to do the same. Thanks for dropping in. Not for you? Okay, see ya.

I might change my mind if more eye candy ever starts generating more income. (Yes, I’ll probably test it again one of these days.)

For now, however, simpler performs better for me.

I run a business. Performance doesn’t mean more visitors, more comments, or longer conversations. It means more money in my bank account.

I greatly enjoy the social interactions on my blogs, online communities, and Facebook. Making money on those sites is not their primary purpose, but they have to at least break even and pay their own costs, excluding Facebook, which is free.

You may have different purposes, definitions, and priorities for your sites.

Act on your dream!

JD

Tags: , , , , , , ,