*Source: [Erik Runyon][http://weedygarden.net/2013/01/carousel-stats/]

Erik Runyon compiles some actual data on how people use carousels, including auto-forwarding carousels and those requiring users to click through. His conclusions:

First, if they’re going to insist on a carousel, they need to include compelling content that not only entices users to click, but can get their attention in the first place. Second, I might suggest keeping the number of features to a maximum of four (or better yet, three), as it appears that as the number of features increases, the click-throughs on sub-features decreases dramatically. Finally, I’d suggest that the subject matter can make a big difference.

The last point is key.

¶

Most website carousels are added not because of a focus on the consumer but because of internal organizational politics, Brad Frost points out. His first rule for when to add a carousel: “Make sure you actually need one.”

¶

A fun new ad for Internet Explorer appeals to 1990s nostalgia:

But is “we were cool once, like Pogs,” really a good way to sell a technology product? Or will it simply promote goodwill towards Microsoft?

Columbia University ran a one-day online fundraising campaign that drew $6.9 million. It had all the hallmarks of a political-style money bomb:

• A time-limited campaign to create urgency;
• Matching gifts from major contributors to inspire donations;
• A counter showing funds raised to date;
• Donations before the formal campaign launch to generate momentum; and
• Multi-channel promotion via e-mail, social media, and phones.

I’m particularly intrigued by the university’s use of a contest between its component schools to prompt donors to give more.

¶

Meghan Keaney Anderson warns against personalizing content just because you can: “Personalization without a good reason breaks the cardinal inbound rule: Marketing should be driven by the prospective customer’s needs. At its core, marketing should be useful.”

¶