← Writing

Test messages, not landing pages

Four landing-page variants on a small budget produce four uninterpretable results instead of one useful one.

The instinct is understandable: you have four ways to describe the product, so you build four pages and let the market pick. On a limited budget this turns one readable result into four thin ones.

The arithmetic of splitting traffic

Detecting a landing-page conversion difference needs traffic per arm, and conversion events are expensive because they're bought with clicks:

ComparisonVisits per variantMedia at $1.50 a click
4% vs 8%: a doubling553$1,659
5% vs 10%435$1,305
5% vs 7.5%1,471$4,413

Those are per-arm figures, for effects far larger than most copy changes produce. A $150 budget split 4 ways gives each page about 25 visits.

Ad messages are measured on impressions, and impressions are cheap

Move the comparison up the funnel. Separating 0.8% from 1.6% click-through takes about 2,900 impressions per message, costing roughly $87 at a $15 CPM. The tighter read costs about $193.

The design is several messages, one page. Each message makes a different bet. Click-through shows which bet earns attention.

It also answers the more useful question

“Nobody wants this” and “nobody wants it described this way” demand different fixes. If every angle fails, change the proposition. If one wins, use it.

Landing-page variants come later, when the budget supports them. Until then: one strong page, several honest messages.

The short version

Use the evidence to choose the next move.

The traffic requirement, uncertainty and report band come from the numbers. Read the method, or see those parts together in the sample report.

Keep reading

Two more notes on making a smaller test answer a real question.

Test messages, not landing pages | portaficta