Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Cynic: ask for picodollars and you shall receive picodollars. Joking aside though, I think that I see something of myself in your marketing. Your web page, for instance, is very plain, which to someone like me is great. But people seem to not like that, for whatever reason. Maybe you should do some A/B testing with a "flashier" (but no flash, please!) version? I would be curious to hear about the results. This is…
I think you're right on both counts. I have a friend who is trying to find a way to make the Tarsnap website look nicer without losing its essential geeky/minimalist character; if/when he comes up with something I'll definitely be doing some testing to see how it compares. That said, I don't think Tarsnap's conversion rate is particularly bad -- I'd say that most important issue is simply getting people to the Tarsna…
Think of it like the crackpots who submit their own math/physics theories. Sure, a professor can critically examine every submission, but it's not a good use of their time. It's easier to just read results in refereed journals.
If someone eccentric is doing something truly groundbreaking (Perelman solving the poincare conjecture), then most people expect somebody to tell them about it. Craigslist is like this -- if you saw the same layout on bobslist.com, you'd know it was some rinky-dink site. But craigslist built a reputation and that reputation is what made it spread.
Unsolicited advice, but long story short: people make snap judgements to save time, and often times they are correct (I suspect most unprofessional-looking sites are not run by professionals in that domain). This can be overcome with word of mouth, but it's ideal to not have to "overcome" their initial snap judgement and make a good first impression.