Clever Tactics That Boost Conversions (and Why)

Charities often depict small costs.

• $1 can provide a meal
• $2 can provide a mosquito net
• $3 can provide a book for a child

Intuitively, people should donate more. A $1 meal? Why not donate 10 meals?

But in reality, the opposite can happen. Instead of seeing these costs as an economic multiplier, donors can perceive these costs as a target.

In one study, people donated whichever amount matched the cost of a mosquito net:

• $3 net? They donated $3.
• $7 net? They donated $7.

Indeed, small costs can lower donations (Lewis & Small, 2024).

But anchors can't be too high either. In a follow-up study, the same researchers mailed a letter to 190k+ donors:

• If donors previously gave $10 to $50: A $10 request worked better than $50.
• If donors previously gave $50 to $100: A $50 request worked better than $100.

How to Apply

• Ask For 10% Below a Previous Donation. Revenue was highest in this condition (vs. 50% below, 25% above).
• Multiply a Small Anchor. Mention that $10 can provide five nets.
• Compare Donations to a Petty Expense. Customers feel guilty if they see an emotional comparison (e.g., for the cost of a latte).

• Lewis, J., & Small, D. (2024). Hitting the Target but Missing the Point: How Donors Use Cost Information. Journal of Consumer Research, ucae061.

Attention is persuasive.

Users often blame their attention on desire: Hmm, why do I keep staring at this button? I must want to click it.

That means you can persuade users by increasing the saliency of a call to action. Even a simple tweak, like adding line breaks to a final sentence:

Try capturing 100% of attention instead of a mere fraction.

How to Apply

• Visual Contrast. Desaturate nearby images.
• Single Action. Secondary actions should be less salient (e.g., transparent button).
• Arrows. Be careful with images of people. Humans instinctively grab attention, so they can steal attention away from a CTA even if you orient the body and eye gaze toward it. Arrows might be more effective because they don't harbor attention on themselves (Ristic & Kingstone, 2006).
• Hide Exit Links. Remove header and footer links in a funnel sequence.
• Animations. Cluttered interfaces need to pull attention more forcefully (e.g., button shimmer).
• CTAs on the Right. Most people are right-handed, so they prefer interacting with elements on the right (Casasanto & Chrysikou, 2011). And I confirmed this effect in a study: Right-handed people were more likely to click a button on the right.
• Right-Facing Images. Did you notice that I flipped the musician to face right? Time is a horizontal spectrum that unfolds from left to right (assuming you read from left to right). Therefore, right-facing images nudge people toward future actions, whereas left-facing images can fixate their attention toward the past (Zhang et al., 2019).

• Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When left is “right” motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological science, 22(4), 419-422.
• Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Attention to arrows: Pointing to a new direction. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 59(11), 1921-1930.
• Zhang, Y., Kwak, H., Jeong, H., & Puzakova, M. (2019). Facing the “right” side? The effect of product facing direction. Journal of Advertising, 48(2), 153-166.

Try enlarging the digits in numerical features.

Bigger digits enhanced the persuasiveness of various messages (Huang, 2025).

Why It Works

• Size Conflation. Big fonts imply largeness: Hmm, something feels big. Must be a high number.
• Confidence Attribution. Big fonts imply a strong message: Hmm, why are these numbers emphasized? Must be better than competitors.

How to Apply

• Add Any Emphasis. Bolding can also imply confidence.
• Show More Units. In addition to the physical size of fonts, you could also increase quantity. Food packages seem larger when they display more units of food (Madzharov & Block, 2010).
• List More Attributes. While drafting an agreement, you might say: The project will be completed under budget by May 3. Try separating this single benefit into multiple benefits: The project will meet all quality requirements. The project will be completed under budget. The project will be completed by May 3.
• Polarize Font Sizes of Prices. I've seen A/B tests in which sales have increased by changing the font size of a price to be smaller or larger. Small fonts can imply a smaller size, while large fonts can imply confidence in the price. Only use a large font if your price is considered a good deal (Huang, 2025).
• Maintain Full Shapes. Detergent bottles seem smaller if they leave an empty gap for a handle (Sevilla & Kahn, 2014). Don't remove too much of your packaging or product.
• Enlarge Product Images. Especially when bigger is better (e.g., vitamins, TV, storage).

Stronger For

• New Brands. Customers must attribute a large font to confidence. This effect didn't happen for well-known companies because customers skipped this attribution; they could already judge quality (Huang, 2025).

• Huang, Y. (2025). Numbers Speak Louder When They Are Larger: The Impact of Font Size on the Persuasiveness of Numerical Stimuli in Advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.
• Madzharov, A. V., & Block, L. G. (2010). Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 398-409.
• Sevilla, J., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The completeness heuristic: Product shape completeness influences size perceptions, preference, and consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 57-68.

Every product is evaluated differently.

For example, how would you assess a pillow? Perhaps by fluffing the sides?

Well, show this interaction in online images:

Images should satisfy cravings of interactivity.

Rotational cues are especially persuasive because they activate the insula and precuneus areas of the brain, suggesting a heightened immersion in which people imagine themselves interacting with products:

...[the] rotation video enabled consumers to self-reference themselves with the apparel products... may give a better sense of “feeling by hand” (Jai et al., 2014)

Always satisfy key assessments.

For example, how would you assess a bag of carrots? You might:

• View them closer
• Flip them over
• Feel and bend them

Embed these actions in a digital store:

• Amazon Fresh helps people look closer via zooming
• Target flips packages with a hover animation
• Walmart conveys freshness by snapping a carrot in half

No store was satisfying all 3 assessments — but they probably should.

• Cano, M. B., Perry, P., Ashman, R., & Waite, K. (2017). The influence of image interactivity upon user engagement when using mobile touch screens. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 406-412.
• Hu, X., & Wise, K. (2020). Perceived control or haptic sensation? Exploring the effect of image interactivity on consumer responses to online product displays. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(1), 60-75.
• Jai, T. M., O'Boyle, M. W., & Fang, D. (2014). Neural correlates of sensory‐enabling presentation: An fMRI study of image zooming and rotation video effects on online apparel shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(5), 342-350.
• Jai, T. M., Fang, D., Bao, F. S., James III, R. N., Chen, T., & Cai, W. (2021). Seeing it is like touching it: Unraveling the effective product presentations on online apparel purchase decisions and brain... Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53(1), 66-79.
• Jha, S., Balaji, M. S., & Peck, J. (2023). Conveying product weight in digital media using a hand image. Journal of Retailing, 99(3), 353-369.
• Krishna, A., Elder, R. S., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 410-418.
• Liu, Y., Jiang, Z., & Choi, B. C. (2023). Pushing yourself harder: The effects of mobile touch modes on users’ self-regulation. Information Systems Research, 34(3), 996-1016.
• Racat, M., Capelli, S., & Lichy, J. (2021). New insights into ‘technologies of touch’: Information processing in product evaluation and purchase intention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120900.
• Roggeveen, A. L., Grewal, D., Townsend, C., & Krishnan, R. (2015). The impact of dynamic presentation format on consumer preferences for hedonic products and services. Journal of Marketing, 79(6), 34-49.

Small differences can be persuasive.

Which option would you choose:

• Trip to Rome
• Trip to Paris + $1

Both options are so unique that $1 is meaningless.

But choose again:

• Trip to Paris
• Trip to Paris + $1

Well, now it's different. If options are highly similar, a minuscule difference can matter. Try highlighting similarities between your product and a competitor, then show a positive difference in your product.

You just need a tiny difference.

Consider a smartphone with a 30-hour battery. Customers will prefer a competitor with a longer battery regardless of this size difference (e.g., 31-hour, 40-hour). It's called positive contrast scope-insensitivity (Voichek & Novemsky, 2024).

Customers initiate a comparison:

• Hmm, is this option better or worse?

But they prematurely stop this assessment if the option is better:

• If better: Great!
• If worse: Hmm, by how much?

Ultimately, features are rarely evaluated by how much they're better. Only by how much they're worse.

How to Apply

• Prioritize New Benchmarks. Customers are insensitive to the size of advantages. Once you surpass an industry metric, focus on beating a new metric. Persuade customers with the number of benchmarks you beat, rather than superiority within benchmarks.
• Prioritize Weak Features. Weaknesses are influenced by severity, so prioritize features that are underperforming by a wide margin.
• Differentiate Any Feature. Folgers differentiated their coffee as flaked crystals, even though this feature was meaningless for taste. Likewise, a jacket with alpine class down fill seemed better than regular down filling even though customers were told that this feature was irrelevant to functionality (Carpenter et al., 1994).

• Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of marketing research, 31(3), 339-350.
• Voichek, G., & Novemsky, N. (2024). Positive Contrast Scope Insensitivity. Journal of Consumer Research, ucae052.