CRO & funnels · Diagnosis, landing pages, structured testing
Improving conversion from 1.5% to 2% is a 33% increase in outcomes at the same spend. Buying 33% more traffic costs more than 33%, because the extra traffic is less qualified.
That arithmetic is why conversion work usually comes before more acquisition — and why it is usually skipped.
Experience includes
Rarely on the button colour. Almost always in the gap between what the ad promised and what the page delivers.
Quantitative drop-off analysis by step, device and source, so the work starts where the loss actually is.
Alignment between the ad, the keyword intent and the page — the single most common cause of a poor landing page conversion rate.
Structure, hierarchy, proof placement and the objections the page must answer before a buyer will act.
Form length, required fields, load speed, unnecessary steps, and trust signals that are missing where they matter.
Prioritised hypotheses, sample size expectations and a stopping rule agreed in advance.
Why it matters: a test stopped when it looks good is not a test.
Event tracking that makes each funnel step visible, because you cannot optimise a step you cannot see.
The same acquisition spend produces more outcomes.
Testing produces learning that accumulates instead of a series of inconclusive experiments.
Page decisions are settled with evidence rather than by whoever is most senior in the room.
Directional. Conversion ceilings are set by the offer and the market as much as by the page.
01
Action: make every funnel step measurable before changing anything.
Output: a baseline worth comparing against.
02
Action: quantitative drop-off plus qualitative review of intent and objections.
Output: ranked opportunities.
03
Action: write each change as a hypothesis with an expected mechanism.
Output: a testing roadmap.
04
Action: run to a pre-agreed sample size and stopping rule.
Output: results you can rely on.
05
Action: implement winners, re-baseline, continue.
Output: compounding improvement.
A page that converts badly for one campaign and well for another does not have a page problem. It has a targeting problem being blamed on the page.
So the diagnosis always segments by source and intent before recommending a single change to the layout. Fixing the wrong layer is the most common way CRO budgets get spent for nothing.
Enough for a test to reach significance in a reasonable window. Below that, the work is diagnosis and best-practice implementation rather than testing, and I will say which you are.
I specify structure, hierarchy and copy, and work with your designer or build in Elementor directly depending on the setup.
Whatever you already have. The tool matters far less than the hypothesis and the stopping rule.
Diagnosis and friction fixes are quick. Test results take as long as your traffic requires, and shortening that window is how teams end up believing things that are not true.
If acquisition is the only lever being pulled, the cheaper one is sitting unused.