Test&Target versus Google Website Optimizer
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2025 10:30 am
There’s no excuse nowadays not to be optimising across multiple channels. There’s heaps of tools available from no cost tools to paid tools and there’s plenty of consultants willing to help you get out there and lead you down a path of optimisation.
Just remember though, 90% of optimisation is done by people, only 10% by the tool. It’s people that create the optimisation strategy, the ideas to test, the segments, the content, the creative and of course, the insights that come from the results – both good and bad.
So how do you know if free is ok, or whether you should invest in something a little more robust? It depends how serious you are about optimisation. It also depends on what analytic tools you run as well. It depends on what you actually want to achieve.
And there’s quite a few distinct differences between Test&Target and Google Website Optimizer, which should make the decision a clear one for you if you’re serious about the whole thing.
This is just a sample of the differences…as I was writing this, I came to the conclusion that there are in fact too many to list (such as mobile testing, in-flash testing, ad network testing), so I tried to focus on what I think are the key differences – the ones that in my opinion, will make or break your venture into optimisation.
A/B Testing.
Both offer it but with big differences.
Google offers it as a landing page redirect, which also means that you need to create two different versions of a full page and host both pages. Of course, once the test is complete, you’ll need to do something to redirect the tested page to the correct URL. There is virtually an unlimited amount of content variations you can create though.
Test&Target offers both Landing Page redirects (similar to Google’s A/B) and an tunisia email list 640,545 contact leads in-page A/B test, again using virtually an unlimited number of content variations. With a T&T A/B test you don’t need to create new versions of the page to test and don’t have the hassle at the end of the campaign.
MVT Testing.
Both offer it.
With GWO, their MVT test is more similar to T&T’s A/B test in that you create multiple variations of the content and use multiple content areas defined on the page.
T&T’s MVT test has multiple content regions that you vary the content in. The biggest difference is the testing methodology…see method of testing below.
Landing Page (and content rotation).
GWO uses the A/B version (redirect) test to do this, locking the visitor into a specific piece of content.
Just remember though, 90% of optimisation is done by people, only 10% by the tool. It’s people that create the optimisation strategy, the ideas to test, the segments, the content, the creative and of course, the insights that come from the results – both good and bad.
So how do you know if free is ok, or whether you should invest in something a little more robust? It depends how serious you are about optimisation. It also depends on what analytic tools you run as well. It depends on what you actually want to achieve.
And there’s quite a few distinct differences between Test&Target and Google Website Optimizer, which should make the decision a clear one for you if you’re serious about the whole thing.
This is just a sample of the differences…as I was writing this, I came to the conclusion that there are in fact too many to list (such as mobile testing, in-flash testing, ad network testing), so I tried to focus on what I think are the key differences – the ones that in my opinion, will make or break your venture into optimisation.
A/B Testing.
Both offer it but with big differences.
Google offers it as a landing page redirect, which also means that you need to create two different versions of a full page and host both pages. Of course, once the test is complete, you’ll need to do something to redirect the tested page to the correct URL. There is virtually an unlimited amount of content variations you can create though.
Test&Target offers both Landing Page redirects (similar to Google’s A/B) and an tunisia email list 640,545 contact leads in-page A/B test, again using virtually an unlimited number of content variations. With a T&T A/B test you don’t need to create new versions of the page to test and don’t have the hassle at the end of the campaign.
MVT Testing.
Both offer it.
With GWO, their MVT test is more similar to T&T’s A/B test in that you create multiple variations of the content and use multiple content areas defined on the page.
T&T’s MVT test has multiple content regions that you vary the content in. The biggest difference is the testing methodology…see method of testing below.
Landing Page (and content rotation).
GWO uses the A/B version (redirect) test to do this, locking the visitor into a specific piece of content.