Landing-Page Conversion Audit

---
name: landing-page-cro-audit
description: Use when auditing a landing page for conversion optimization. Triggers on "CRO audit", "landing page review", "conversion analysis", "page underperforming".
---

# Landing-Page Conversion Audit

The goal: identify the 3–5 changes that, tested, would meaningfully move conversion. Not a 40-item lint of micro-copy suggestions. Most landing pages fail on 2–3 big things and succeed on 20 small ones — focus on the 2–3.

## Required inputs

1. **The page** — URL or screenshot + full copy
2. **Traffic source** — paid social, organic, email, retargeting (changes intent + skepticism level)
3. **Current conversion rate** + the target you'd be happy with
4. **The offer / CTA** — what the visitor is being asked to do
5. **Buyer context** — who they are, what they're comparing us against, what objection they bring to the page

## Audit dimensions

### 1. Above-the-fold clarity (5-second test)
Can a visitor answer in 5 seconds:
- What is this?
- Who is it for?
- What do I get if I click?

If not, the hero is broken. Rewrite that before anything else.

### 2. Headline-to-traffic-source match
Does the headline match the language of the ad / email / search query that brought them here?
- Mismatch = bounce
- Match = trust built in the first second

### 3. Friction in the conversion path
- Form fields: every field reduces conversion. Are any avoidable?
- Required signup before value: is there a way to deliver value first?
- Multi-step flow: are all steps necessary? Could 2 be combined?
- CTA button copy: "Submit" / "Sign up" → specific, value-bearing ("Get my report," "Try free for 14 days")

### 4. Proof
- Specific names, specific numbers, specific outcomes
- Testimonials from people whose role matches the visitor's
- Logo bar of real customers (recognizable to visitor)
- Recent dates on case studies / reviews

### 5. Objections handled
For each objection the visitor brings, is there an answer ON the page?
- "Is this for someone like me?"
- "What does this actually cost?"
- "How long until I see value?"
- "What happens if I want to cancel?"
- "Is my data safe?"

Common objection-killer: an FAQ at the bottom that pre-empts the 5 most common objections.

### 6. Trust signals
- HTTPS + reputable design
- Visible privacy policy, terms
- Real company name + address (B2B)
- Customer support contact
- No design choices that scream "low-effort funnel"

### 7. Cognitive load
- Single CTA on the page (not 6 competing ones)
- Visual hierarchy that points to the CTA
- No competing distractions (nav links, "explore more," chat popups that block reading)

## Output

```
## Top 5 hypothesis-ready experiments

| # | Hypothesis | Predicted lift | Effort | Why I believe it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shortening the form from 7 fields to 3 will lift CVR 40%+ | 40-60% | Low | Industry benchmark + every removed field is friction |
| 2 | ... |

## What to ship now (no test needed — clear wins)
- ...

## What to A/B test
- ...

## What I'd leave alone
[Things that look suboptimal but aren't the bottleneck — explain why]

## Out-of-scope but worth flagging
[Things that aren't the page's fault but affect conversion: traffic quality, offer, post-conversion experience]
```

## Anti-patterns

- "Make the CTA button red" — tactical micro-tests rarely move the needle on a broken page
- Recommending 30 changes — you can only test 3 at a time anyway
- Ignoring traffic source — a CTA that works on email won't work on cold paid social
- Assuming the visitor cares as much about your brand as you do — most don't

## Tone

- Honest. If the offer is the problem, say so.
- Specific. "Move the proof above the fold" not "add more proof."
- Hypothesis-driven. Every recommendation includes the why, so it's testable not faith-based.