How “Superior” Landing Page Optimization Strategists Differ From “Inferior” Ones

August 13, 2013

This article is included in these additional categories:

Analytics, Automated & MarTech | Data-driven | Digital | Search Engine Optimization

Ascend2-Testing-Landing-Page-Elements-Optimization-Aug2013Ascend2 is out with another report [download page] conducted in partnership with Research Underwriters, this time focusing on landing page optimization (LPO). As with the previous report (on SEO strategies), this study compares respondents who rate the success of their LPO strategy in achieving important objectives as very successful (“Superior Strategy”) with those who deem their strategies to not be successful (“Inferior Strategy”).

One of the clearest differences between the two groups concerns the extent to which they test landing page elements (A/B or multivariate) for optimization. 32% of those with a “superior strategy” say they conduct extensive testing, while none of those with an “inferior” strategy do so. Similarly, while 53% of superior strategies conduct limited testing, only half as many inferior strategists do. All told then, three-quarters of inferior strategists don’t test at all, compared to 15% of superior strategists.

How else do successful LPO strategists differ from their struggling counterparts? The study suggests that those with a “superior strategy” are:

  • About twice as likely to count improved lead segmentation for campaign targeting (19% vs. 9%) and improved landing page testing practices (17% vs. 8%) as important objectives in the year ahead;
  • Far less likely to cite the lack of LPO best practices knowledge (19% vs. 52%) and the lack of a clear and concise LPO strategy (15% vs. 61%) as their most challenging objectives;
  • 55% more likely to say that A/B or multivariate testing of landing page elements is a most effective LPO strategy (45% vs. 29%);
  • Much less likely to count usability testing of landing pages (21% vs. 36%) and simplification of landing page creation and re-design (13% vs. 31%) as the most difficult LPO tactics to execute;
  • 17% more likely to say that conversion rate (62% vs. 53%) is the most useful metric for analyzing landing page performance, while being 33% less likely to say that click-through rate (32% vs. 48%) is the most useful metric;
  • More likely to test for layout of page elements and less likely to test for brand graphics.

There are some commonalities between the two groups of course. For example, they both count increased lead generation from landing pages and increased lead-to-customer conversion rates as their most important objectives, as well as agreeing that simplifying landing page creation and redesign is the most effective LPO tactic. Both groups also test call to action for optimization most often.

About the Data: The “Landing Page Optimization Strategy Outlook Survey” was fielded during August 2013 among 617 business leaders, marketing executives and marketing practitioners from around the world.

45th Parallel Design Ad

Explore More Charts.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This