The so-called widget economy of the Web 2.0 era seems to be declining. A few years ago, social bars like Meebo and Wibiya as well as info bars like Snapshots were popular across the web. Based on our recent experiences browsing the web, these widgets have largely disappeared, though a few popular widget types survive: live chat add-ons (e.g. Olark) and feedback tabs (e.g. UserVoice) in particular.

Although in theory the widget economy could work based on a symbiosis model, in practice it rarely works that way. Meebo’s CEO, Seth Sternberg, even declared that the widget economy was a lie. Our guess is that there has been growing awareness of A/B testing among web developers, and most widgets prove to be conversion killers, despite possibly providing ancillary benefits. As to why most widgets detract from site goals, we hypothesize that the mode of deployment (throwing a box with extraneous content in the middle of the conversion funnel) practically annoys users, changes browsing mood, and derails the conversion process. Of course, certain modes of deployment annoy more than others (e.g. pop-ups begging you to sign up for a newsletter vs. static chat box on the right bar), so manner of deployment is also a relevant factor.

The common trait across those widgets that remain successful (e.g. KissInsights, GetSatisfaction, SnapEngage) seems to be that they focus on making the site owners happy instead of ostensibly making end-users happy through social functionalities or enhanced browsing experiences. Also, site owners no longer swallow gibberish like “increase site engagement” when shopping for onsite solutions; they know too well that “increase site engagement” means increasing engagement with the widget solution while reducing the amount of attention that end-users would pay to the main website. There also has to be a way to measure ROI that is tied directly to sales, not vanity metrics like number of followers, traffic, or even “leads,” whatever that means.

These are lessons that we have learnt from building our flagship widget product, Zuupy FriendAdvisor, which we have tried to apply consistently when building our second widget product, Zuupy CrowdDeals. Perhaps the best way to sell widgets is to please site owners first to get past the barrier of deployment, and then work on pleasing the end-users to avoid causing disillusionment in the site owners, or perhaps the best thing to do is not to build things that sit in a box in the first place. Share with us what you think.

Shoppers are not the most decisive people when it comes to purchase planning, often needing third-party advice, validation, and recommendations from both friends and strangers alike. Shopper engagement thus becomes an important priority for retailers, lest doubtful shoppers drop off to third-party platforms (such as consumer review portals) to get the information that they want or, worse, to competing online stores that can offer a more holistic shopping experience.

Consumers consulting each other as a form of product research is common; take a look at the overwhelming list of “which should I buy” threads on Yahoo! Answers here. Most shoppers browsing an ecommerce website have a need for reassurance and third-party information in general, or at least overwhelming social proof, before they complete a purchase or even contemplate it. Any opportunity for shoppers to obtain unbiased, diverse consumer research information would thus be immensely helpful in building trust, which is a critical differentiator in the cut-throat online retail sector.

Since consumers are already helping one another make better buying decisions, or practicing social commerce, there lies an opportunity in baking this common experience into the shopping experience, right on the retailer’s own platform. One plausible tactic is to allow shoppers to consult one another on purchase decision-making, in real-time or otherwise, while still retaining them on the storefront. This appraoch (and indeed our approach) departs considerably from the idea of merely installing a message board that is separate from the sales funnel. The value proposition of this onsite social commerce strategy is two-fold: 1) expanding the traditional online storefront into a platform for consumer research leads to a tremendous increase in engagement and brand equity (e.g. the Amazon effect), and 2) shoppers with access to third-party information are more confident buyers, thus letting them complete their purchase during their moment of assurance is likely to save a non-trivial amount of sales that could otherwise have gone to a competitor.

This has long been a possibility that is largely ignored by the change-resistant ecommerce industry, despite the growing variety of social technologies available for socializing the storefront. Perhaps now is a good time to take a bold step forward and essentially give shoppers what they have always wanted.

Low conversion rates are a sharp pain point for any company doing business online. There seems to be a common obsession centered on simplifying the conversion funnel, eliminating all distractions that detract from the core offering, and basically persistently pushing the visitor through the conversion funnel. Simplicity is good, but simplicity at the expense of function and user experience is foolish. Companies that insist on oversimplifying the conversion funnel, e.g. by reducing the number of stages to a ridiculously low number (look at work-from-home, passive-income ebook web pages that ask for your credit card information on the landing page), will find that simplification at some point means simplifying away the essential elements that actually drive conversions.

When I was in school, my science teacher taught us to think of extreme cases if we wanted to determine the effect of A on B. For instance, if one is to determine the effect of varying the magnitude of the denominator of a fraction on the magnitude of the fraction itself, one should test said effect using a very, very large and small denominator, respectively, while keeping the numerator constant. In ecommerce, if one is to determine the effect of conversion funnel simplification on conversion rates, one should imagine an ultra-simple conversion funnel, say, a one-page website with the product title, product image, price, and buy button. The question to ask then is whether said page would reasonably be expected to convert better than a website with fluffy “extras,” such as social proof, detailed specifications, and multiple images. The answer is probably “no.”

There are Distractions, and There are Distractions

One of the problems associated with simplifying the conversion funnel is determining whether a given page element is a conversion-enhancing or conversion-suppressing element. Chances are there are several things on the website that can be eliminated without hurting conversions, some that can be eliminated to increase conversions, and others that, when eliminated, cause a decrease in conversions. For every argument tendered for keeping a page element, one could find a counter-argument of equal persuasiveness, so, naturally, one would end up conducting A/B testing to compare conversion rates across different versions of the website. The problem is that, for low-traffic websites, the tests take forever to reach statistical significance, and it becomes technically-challenging to conduct, manage, and interpret an increasingly-large number of multiple tests. It is just easier and much more tempting to remove elements based on gut-feel.

The other problem in simplifying the conversion funnel is that of oversimplifying the stages of the conversion funnel. One of the worst usability problems occurs when users feel like they are forced or rushed into acting or making a decision. For instance, no user would be charitable enough to fulfill a call-to-action without a clear benefit or sufficient information. Images, videos, live demos, full specifications, etc. go a long way in earning the trust and confidence of users.

Alas, the point of this article is not to propose specific methods for conversion funnel optimization, but to illustrate that there is such a thing as oversimplifying the conversion funnel to the point that it hurts conversions. I will leave you with a list of things to determine whether they fall into the “distraction” or “attraction” category: Facebook Like buttons, AddThis/ShareThis buttons, Google AdSense advertisements, live-chat widgets, Twitter streaming widgets, Twitter/Facebook icons, reviews/testimonials, currency converters, stock images, FAQs, and talking presenters.