Site icon CXL

Landing Page Case Study: How We Improved Conversions by 79.3%

It took us six rounds of tests until we landed on a variation that was doing 79.3% better than the version our client had before coming to us.


TruckersReport is a network of professional truck drivers, connected by a trucking industry forum. It’s a great community for drivers to share information and assist in each others’ careers. I guess it’s what you’d call a niche site—but that niche brings TruckersReport over 1,000,000 visits each month (close to 5 million pageviews).

One of the services they provide to their community is helping truck drivers find better job opportunities. Truck drivers fill out a one-time online resume, then choose between offers from pre-screened trucking companies.

This was the landing page they had, our starting point:

This landing page was converting at 12.1% (email opt-ins).

What followed after the initial landing page was a four-step online resume building flow. The primary request was to increase landing page conversions—to widen the funnel at the top—but also to increase overall funnel conversions.


In addition to heuristic analysis, we analyzed the current page using Google Analytics, set up mouse tracking data collection (click data, scroll maps, attention heat maps) and started to record user session videos via SessionCam.

Next, we wanted to understand the audience better. We ran an online survey using Google Forms to get in the head of truck drivers:

These were the top factors what we focused on:

Armed with these insights, we proceeded.

New design

This was the new, fully responsive design we created.

We didn’t want to change the layout dramatically. We wanted to isolate user issues more effectively. Heat maps and user session replay videos showed that the previous layout worked well in terms of usability.

Why this layout?

In the process, we also re-designed the funnel steps (also fully responsive).

Six tests to find a winner

Test 1

Hypothesis: Fewer form fields means less friction and hassle to fill out the form, resulting in more conversions.

Results: The control beat the variation by 13.56%.

Insights: Although short forms usually outperform long forms, this did not apply here. More testing is needed to figure out why. Hypothesis: Added fields give more credibility or add relevancy; a plain email field can look “spammy.”

Test 2

Hypothesis: Copy that addresses the most common problems truck drivers face, using the the wording they actually use (taken from the customer survey), will resonate better with the audience.

We crafted a new headline and added bullet points full of benefits to address other stuff that came up in the survey.

Results: While there was no difference in landing page opt-ins, there was a 21.7% difference in bottom-of-funnel conversions—by the original. People lured in by big promises were less motivated to go through the whole five-step funnel.

Insights: Short, straight-to-the point language can work. Too many promises can look like hype or attract the wrong kind of people.

Test 3

In the first two tests, the average conversion rates were similar to the original landing page. But since traffic is ever-changing, we decided to test the original landing page versus the new landing page to make sure that the design was enhancing the site.

In addition, we wanted to test the absence of a “job match” page. By default, people who completed the opt-in landed on this page, which had some animation on it to help people perceive progress:

The idea behind this page was to help boost bottom-of-funnel conversions. Google Analytics showed us that there was a 10.8% drop-off rate on this page. So we wanted to test whether losing those people had a negative impact.

Results: Variation #1 (new landing page) resulted in 21.7% more opt-ins than the control at a 99.7% confidence level, and 24% more sign-ups from the whole funnel. The “Job match” page did not improve bottom-of-funnel conversions, so we removed it.

Test 4

We wanted to test more headlines.


Results: Control outperformed all variations. The original headline beat out the second-best variation—”You are free to choose”—by 16.2%.

Insight: A simple, straightforward approach works best for this audience. So the question is, “How can we use this insight to make the page even simpler?”

Test 5

Building on the “simple” insight from the previous test, we created a shorter, simpler version of the page:

Results: Variation #1 with a shorter page layout and less copy outperformed the control and resulted in 21.5% more opt-ins at a 99.6% confidence level.

Insight: Learnings from previous tests proved right—a shorter layout and less copy resulted in more opt-ins. How could we now make it even simpler?

Test 6

We had many different hypotheses on how to simplify the page even more.

Results: Variation #3, with no name field and the email as the last field, resulted in 44.7% more opt-ins at a 99.9% confidence level.

We achieved a 21.7% conversion rate (the margin of error was 1.48%, but no overlap with the ranges of other variations occurred), which is 79.3% better than the initial landing page.


When you start testing a page, don’t test just once and move on to testing other parts of the site. Don’t think of the process as one-off tests but as testing campaigns.

Learn from each test, make sure you send test data to Google Analytics, and segment the results. (I didn’t go into details here.) Keep iterating. Use insights from previous tests to drive upcoming tests. You won’t know what matters until you test it. Have a lot of patience.

If we had tested only the control versus the new landing page, we wouldn’t have reached 79.3%—and we were just getting started.

Note: This case study originally appeared in 2013.

Related Posts

Exit mobile version