Landing Page: CTA Optimization
Test Results
Key Learning
Context: The primary call-to-action on the landing page isn't converting at its potential — design, copy, or placement may be the bottleneck.
What was tested: A variation was tested against the existing experience.
Result: No statistically significant difference was detected. CTA changes that don't move the needle often mean the bottleneck is elsewhere — consider testing the surrounding context or the value proposition instead.
How to Apply This to Your Site
This experiment tested landing page: cta optimization but produced no statistically significant change. The test was run on a landing page page in the energy & utilities industry. Inconclusive results suggest this particular change may not be a priority — focus testing effort on higher-impact areas.
Before you test: Consider that cta tests typically require large sample sizes to detect small effects. This test ran for 29 days — plan for at least that long.
This result reached 95% statistical confidence, meaning there is a very low probability the observed effect was due to chance. Results at this confidence level are generally considered reliable for making business decisions.
What Was Tested
A/B test on landing page testing cta changes.
Methodology
Build On These Learnings
Save your own experiments, spot winning patterns across your test history, and stop repeating what's already been tried.
Related Experiments
Listing: Visible Payment Options
Context: The primary call-to-action on the listing isn't converting at its potential — design, copy, or placement may be the bottleneck.
Listing: Filled Or Ghost Buttons
Context: The primary call-to-action on the listing isn't converting at its potential — design, copy, or placement may be the bottleneck.
Does Pinning a Mobile Checkout CTA Improve Conversion?
Sticky mobile CTAs can compress time-on-page meaningfully (~15% faster) without sacrificing engagement signals — users converted at a directionally higher rate AND moved through the page faster, suggesting reduced hesitation rather than rushed clicks. The result was shipped via 90/10 holdout monitoring rather than traditional 50/50 A/B inference — the high baseline (~85%) and limited mobile traffic made full A/B underpowered, so the team chose a holdout-validated rollout as the deliberate methodology. Bayesian P(variant > control) was ~0.90, supporting the directional ship call. Worth noting: external research flags sticky CTAs as context-dependent — they help when the primary action is buried below the fold, but can hurt on shorter pages where the original CTA is already visible.
Does Adding a Shopping CTA to the Main Navigation Drive Plan Views?
A CTA's click rate is not its conversion contribution. This test surfaced one of the most consistently underweighted patterns in CRO: behavioral diagnostics almost always tell a more honest story than the topline. The aggregate result looked like a tiny non-significant lift (+1%); the diagnostic revealed that of every 100 button clicks, only 6 reached the next funnel step. Two failure modes converged: (1) copy intent mismatch — the chosen label read as 'create account' rather than 'shop,' so a large share of clicks came from users trying to log in / manage their account from support and customer pages; (2) extra modal step before the destination page added friction without value. The aggregate lift was partially cannibalization from higher-converting paths. The transferable pattern: when introducing a global navigation element, validate the click→conversion ratio per source page, not just the topline. High clicks from low-intent pages creates a false signal of engagement that can mask poor performance.