Clever Tactics That Boost Conversions (and Why)

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.

Most products are multi-sensory.

Consider wine. It has color, fizz, fragrance, texture, and other traits besides taste.

Well, these sensory traits are embedded in the neural wiring of your concept for wine (Barsalou, 1999). By including all sensory traits in your product imagery:

• Your wine will be activated more intensely.
• Intense activation strengthens emotions.
• Stronger emotions motivate purchases.

How to Apply

• Display Scented Objects. In Walmart’s catalog, only 27% of scented products actually show the scented object in the product image (yet these products earn higher ratings; Sharma & Estes, 2024).
• Enlarge the Trigger. Add more flowers, etc. (Lyu & Huang, 2024).
• Strengthen the Trigger. Not all triggers are equal. Cleaning products are preferred with images of sliced lemons because you can see the inside juices, so you feel a stronger sensation (Sharma & Estes, 2024). Perhaps you could bolster cinnamon sticks with ground cinnamon (which exudes a stronger aroma).

• Add Videos With Sounds. Blenders and knives seem more powerful when they emit loud sounds (Ringler et al., 2021; Løkke‐Andersen et al., 2022).
• Include Sensory Words. Words like crumble and juicy can activate the senses more than images. In sponsored videos on TikTok, each additional sensory word was associated with 11k more likes and comments (Silva et al., 2021; Cascio et al., 2023).

• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
• Cascio Rizzo, G. L., Berger, J., De Angelis, M., & Pozharliev, R. (2023). How sensory language shapes influencer’s impact. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(4), 810-825.
• Chen, Y. C., & Spence, C. (2010). When hearing the bark helps to identify the dog: Semantically-congruent sounds modulate the identification of masked pictures. Cognition, 114(3), 389-404.
• Hattula, J. D., Herzog, W., & Dhar, R. (2023). The impact of touchscreen devices on consumers’ choice confidence and purchase likelihood. Marketing Letters, 34(1), 35-53.
• Løkke‐Andersen, C. B., Wang, Q. J., & Giacalone, D. (2022). User experience design approaches for accommodating high “need for touch” consumers in ecommerce. Journal of sensory studies, 37(2), e12727.
• Lyu, M., & Huang, Q. (2024). Visual elements in advertising enhance odor perception and purchase intention: The role of mental imagery in multi-sensory marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 78, 103752.
• Ringler, C., Sirianni, N. J., & Christenson, B. (2021). The power of consequential product sounds. Journal of Retailing, 97(2), 288-300.
• Sharma, V., & Estes, Z. (2024). Seeing is smelling: Pictures improve product evaluations by evoking olfactory imagery. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 41(2), 282-307.
• Silva, S. C., Rocha, T. V., De Cicco, R., Galhanone, R. F., & Mattos, L. T. M. F. (2021). Need for touch and haptic imagery: An investigation in online fashion shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102378.