The quantity of text make them a little hard to digest but they both have an appealing character to me. They communicate a sense of integrity and honesty. It might be the Britishness :) I would actually be a bit sad if a more conventionally glib landing page converts better.
I wouldn't sign up to into.technology unseen. If the landing page previewed the current issue e.g. list of topics, and the selection demonstrated excellent curation then I might.
I would bounce from pleasant very quickly because its unclear what differentiates it in the crowded metrics space. My lazy assumption would be that its a bit player not worth investigating, better to stick to the market leaders.
Does Pleasant have any unique strengths you can make its primary focus? For example, the box "People, not IP addresses" intrigues me. I have worked with sites that may only have 5 users but they are the whole business and paying enterprise figures for the service. If your niche was "analytics for when you serve VIPs not crowds" or something, it would get me quite excited and I'd immediately be thinking of cases where this might be a better fit than the alternatives.
First of all, thanks for taking the time to write all of that. Really helpful.
I'm going to go through all of the copy and trim it down a bit, you're not the first to say that there's a bit too much. Thanks for saying that it communicates integrity, etc - I'm trying to build a good company (products made with care, giving money to charity, pricing fairly and helping other businesses, etc), so that's really great to hear.
> If the landing page previewed the current issue e.g. list of topics, and the selection demonstrated excellent curation then I might.
Good idea, I'll add a link to the latest issue on the homepage of into.technology.
> Does Pleasant have any unique strengths you can make its primary focus?
Pleasant is a tricky one, it took me a while to try and describe even to myself why it's different (really not a good start when building a business, I know). There are two main features. The first is the simplicity. I'm aiming to get people using Pleasant as little as possible: you login, you immediately see statistics relative to previous days/weeks/months and can get an idea as to whether things are trending up or down. If you need more info, there are more in depth pages, auto-generated user reports, etc. I've found that even Google Analytics is very complicated - I'm hoping there's a demand for a simple, cheap analytics service.
The other feature is the user identification. You can add a few meta tags / form attributes onto your site and users that have identified themselves (i.e. logged in, signed up for a newsletter, etc) will show up in your analytics, along with their gravatar, etc. I think I need to emphasise this feature a bit more.
> If your niche was "analytics for when you serve VIPs not crowds" or something...
Interesting idea. I'm currently targeting regular people, small business owners, etc - people who don't need the power of a full on analytics service. But you might be right that this could be worth investigating. I'll give that some thought.
I wouldn't sign up to into.technology unseen. If the landing page previewed the current issue e.g. list of topics, and the selection demonstrated excellent curation then I might.
I would bounce from pleasant very quickly because its unclear what differentiates it in the crowded metrics space. My lazy assumption would be that its a bit player not worth investigating, better to stick to the market leaders.
Does Pleasant have any unique strengths you can make its primary focus? For example, the box "People, not IP addresses" intrigues me. I have worked with sites that may only have 5 users but they are the whole business and paying enterprise figures for the service. If your niche was "analytics for when you serve VIPs not crowds" or something, it would get me quite excited and I'd immediately be thinking of cases where this might be a better fit than the alternatives.