A landing page has one job: help a specific visitor, arriving with a specific expectation, take one next step. Most underperforming landing pages fail at one of five things.
The five checks
- Intent match. Does the headline continue the promise of the ad, email or search result that brought them? A mismatch makes people bounce in seconds.
- Clarity. Can a first-time visitor say what this is, who it’s for and why it’s better within five seconds?
- Credibility. Is there genuine proof: specific testimonials, reviews, recognisable customers (with permission), guarantees, clear pricing?
- Friction. Are the form, the steps and the page itself as light as they can be without losing quality?
- Action. Is the next step obvious, and does the button say what happens next (“Get my quote”, not “Submit”)?
Diagnose before you redesign
- Analytics: bounce and scroll by traffic source. Is one source performing much worse? That points to intent mismatch.
- Five-second test: show the page to five people from the audience; ask what it offers.
- Recordings: where do people pause, scroll back or leave?
- Survey: “What else would you need to know before getting in touch?”
Typical hypotheses
| Evidence | Hypothesis direction |
|---|---|
| Paid search visitors bounce much more than organic | Rewrite the headline to match the ad’s promise |
| Survey: “not sure about price” | Show a price range or “from” price near the CTA |
| Recordings: users hunt for proof | Move specific testimonials next to the form |
| Form analytics: drop at “phone number” | Make the phone field optional and explain why it’s asked |
Score each with PXL before testing.
Accessibility is conversion
Low-contrast text, missing labels and tiny tap targets exclude people and hurt everyone on a phone in sunlight. Meet WCAG 2.2 AA as a baseline (W3C). See accessibility and conversion.