Website design · Sixteen experiments including a field experiment on live product pages

Creating Effective Online Customer Experiences

Journal of Marketing · 2019

Alexander Bleier, Colleen M. Harmeling, Robert W. Palmatier

Summary

The experiments connect distinct page elements with multiple dimensions of online experience and show that those experiences influence purchase.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

A structured source for forming homepage and product-page hypotheses: assess information, entertainment, social presence and sensory cues separately, then test them against qualified conversion rather than aesthetic preference.

Reported result

What the study found

The experiments connect distinct page elements with multiple dimensions of online experience and show that those experiences influence purchase. The field experiment with real product pages supports the experimental findings.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which product-page design elements shape online customer experience and purchase behavior?

Design

Across 16 experiments, the authors test 13 page-design elements and four experience dimensions: informativeness, entertainment, social presence and sensory appeal. A field experiment manipulates real product pages on Amazon.com.

Sample and setting

Study 1 used 16 products from 11 brands and 256 experimental product-page versions; the broader research program includes online and field experiments.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The research uses online retail product pages and Amazon-style experiences; SaaS homepages, feature pages and signup flows involve different tasks. Effects depend on product and page context.

Research sources

Journal publisher abstract and accessible author manuscript; design elements and experiment scope checked against the manuscript.

Study strength

4.0/5 Useful evidence with meaningful caveats

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1.7/2

An experiment is useful for causal evidence, but the accessible profile does not establish random assignment.

Sample · 0.5/1

Small sample reported (16); treat the result as exploratory.

Comparison · 0.8/1

Experimental comparison is described; randomization or control details need checking in the paper.

Can we check it? · 1/1

An accessible full paper or manuscript is linked, making methods easier to check.

Double-blind? Blinding is not reported in the source reviewed; that does not establish whether blinding was or was not used.

Read the paper