Let me start with some disclosure: We funded a company to do exactly this. I won’t mention them here as a courtesy to you, but know that I will have some bias as I go through this.
When I advise startups about landing pages, I usually refer to some teachings from Call to Action.
The examples in the book are fairly outdated, but the lessons are sound. The one I’ll talk about here has to do with the questions visitors need to have answered before they’ll proceed to clicking a call to action.
- What is it?
- Is this right for me?
- Is it legit?
- What’s the catch? / How much does it cost?
- Who else is using this?
- Can I get help?
Different users have different configurations of those questions they need to have answered before they move forward down your conversion funnel. Great landing pages answer all of them efficiently.
You’re missing a number of answers to those questions on your site. Some can be found on your FAQ, but I think you need to front load more of them. The number one problem for me and the reason why I’ll use our portfolio startup’s site over yours is that this doesn’t look professional. When it comes to legal issues / fines, trusting you to get the job done and keeping me from getting into more trouble is what I need to feel to hand over my problem to you.
Part of it is the design and that’s easily fixed with a nicer template at the least. Evidence of how many tickets you’ve successfully fought or won, or information that just fighting a ticket is worth doing because the courts don’t want to dedicate resources to fighting a parking ticket would be helpful.
There’s marketing speak mixed in with some defensiveness and some confusing reference to what feels like a conflict of interest. Thinking through it, I don’t think there is a conflict of interest, but the way you worded it makes me feel like there is. If it were me, I’d just remove the question. If you’re the only firm that gets the ticket info, then I’d remove from the interface what looks like an assignment of a firm to a ticket. It just raises questions that are distracting.
This service should be an abstraction. Give us the ticket, we’ll take care of it. X % gets removed. If not, we pay the ticket automatically for you. Either way, this is how you stop worrying about this piece of paper.
A lot of potential here, though. The name is great. It’s memorable. Build a brand that it deserves. Start with copy and then move to the design.
When I advise startups about landing pages, I usually refer to some teachings from Call to Action.
http://www.amazon.com/Call-Action-Formulas-Improve-Results/d...
The examples in the book are fairly outdated, but the lessons are sound. The one I’ll talk about here has to do with the questions visitors need to have answered before they’ll proceed to clicking a call to action.
Different users have different configurations of those questions they need to have answered before they move forward down your conversion funnel. Great landing pages answer all of them efficiently.You’re missing a number of answers to those questions on your site. Some can be found on your FAQ, but I think you need to front load more of them. The number one problem for me and the reason why I’ll use our portfolio startup’s site over yours is that this doesn’t look professional. When it comes to legal issues / fines, trusting you to get the job done and keeping me from getting into more trouble is what I need to feel to hand over my problem to you.
Part of it is the design and that’s easily fixed with a nicer template at the least. Evidence of how many tickets you’ve successfully fought or won, or information that just fighting a ticket is worth doing because the courts don’t want to dedicate resources to fighting a parking ticket would be helpful.
This FAQ question, however, made me cringe: http://www.tickettitan.com/faq/#law
There’s marketing speak mixed in with some defensiveness and some confusing reference to what feels like a conflict of interest. Thinking through it, I don’t think there is a conflict of interest, but the way you worded it makes me feel like there is. If it were me, I’d just remove the question. If you’re the only firm that gets the ticket info, then I’d remove from the interface what looks like an assignment of a firm to a ticket. It just raises questions that are distracting.
This service should be an abstraction. Give us the ticket, we’ll take care of it. X % gets removed. If not, we pay the ticket automatically for you. Either way, this is how you stop worrying about this piece of paper.
A lot of potential here, though. The name is great. It’s memorable. Build a brand that it deserves. Start with copy and then move to the design.
Good luck and thanks for sharing!