Research-based Lead Gen Swipe File
22 valid marketing experiments to give you ideas for your next A/B test
|
Fellow evidence-based marketer, Generating quality leads has only gotten harder as more industries have embraced digital marketing. So how do you compete? How do you increase your conversion rate and get more leads? I can't give you a specific answer. But I'll tell you who can — your customers. With A/B testing, you can discover what really works on your company's website and in your email and ads with your prospective customers. To give you test ideas, we put together this swipe file of 22 lead generation experiments that MECLABS Institute analysts conducted in lead generation Research Partnerships with B2B and B2C companies to help them learn about their customers and improve conversion rates. |
|
There’s a lot of information here, and different people will want to go through this swipe file in different ways. You can scroll through the webpage you’re on and use the anchor links. Or use the form on the page to download a PDF with all of the experiments, including a table of contents and internal anchor links to help you navigate.
If these experiments inspire your own tests, we’d love to see the results — just drop me a line at d.burstein@meclabs.com.
Here’s to higher-converting lead gen websites,
Daniel Burstein
Senior Director, Content & Marketing
MarketingSherpa and MECLABS Institute
P.S. If you need help improving conversion, just drop me a line as well. MECLABS analysts can work hand in hand with you to apply our patented methodology to your conversion challenges.
Download a 158-page PDF with these 22 experiments
plus, you’ll receive regular emails from MECLABS Institute.
Table of Contents
The following experiments were conducted using the MECLABS Research Approach
Experiment #1: 10% increase in registrations for survey company by reducing the length of the form and strengthening the value through a clear headline
Experiment ID: TP11111
Background: A survey company offering to pay its members to take surveys
Goal: To increase qualified survey panelist registrations
Primary Research Question: Which panelist registration page will have a higher conversion rate?
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #1: Control
Experiment #1: Control
Experiment #1: Control
Experiment #1: Control
Experiment #1: Treatment
Experiment #1: Treatment
Experiment #1: Treatment
Experiment #1: Side by Side
Experiment #1: Results
10% Relative Increase in Registrations
The new page design improved the conversion rate by 10.44%.
| Versions | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 26.04% | - |
| Treatment | 28.76% | 10.44% |
What You Need to Understand: By focusing on reducing the length of the form and strengthening the value through a clear headline, we were able to generate 10.44% more registrations.
Experiment #2: 20% increase in applications for survey company by minimizing hidden friction on the page
Experiment ID: TP1278
Background: A survey company seeking consumer opinions in exchange for a chance to win a trip to an exotic location
Goal: To increase the number of applications
Primary Research Question: Which destination page will result in higher conversions to panelist sign-up?
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #2: Control
Experiment #2: Treatment
Experiment #2: Side by Side
Experiment #2: Results
20% Relative Increase in Leads
The new page improved lead generation by 19.67%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 26.54%* | - |
| Treatment | 31.76%* | 19.67% |
What You Need to Understand: By minimizing hidden difficulty-based friction on the page and clearly communicating the value of the offer, the treatment outperformed the control by 19.67%.
Experiment #3: 100% higher clickthrough rate for medical provider by using a “symptoms” content approach
Experiment ID: TP4067
Background: Medical provider specializing in an innovative chronic pain treatment
Goal: To plan a content marketing strategy based on which approach generates more appeal in condition-based searchers
Primary Research Question: Which content approach will achieve a higher clickthrough rate?
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #3: Control
Experiment #3: Treatment 1
Experiment #3: Treatment 2
Experiment #3: Treatment 3
Experiment #3: Treatment 4
Experiment #3: Side by Side
Experiment #3: Results
100% Relative Increase in Clickthrough
"Symptoms" generated 99.7% more clicks than the "[Specialty] Pain Resources"
| Version | KPI | |
| Specialty Pain Resources | .15% | - |
| Treatment Options | .17% | |
| Causes and Solutions | .26% | |
| Symptoms | .30% | 99.7% |
What You Need to Understand: The "symptoms" content approach is most appealing to visitors making condition-based searches.
Experiment #4: 40% increase in clickthrough rate for medical provider by adding “Symptoms” to both header and description
(Follow-up test for: Experiment #3 TP4067)
Experiment ID: TP4068
Background: Medical provider specializing in treating chronic pain
Goal: To plan a content marketing strategy based on which approach generates more appeal in condition-based searchers
Primary Research Question: Which content approach will achieve a higher clickthrough rate?
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #4: Control
Experiment #4: Treatment 1
Experiment #4: Treatment 2
Experiment #4: Treatment 3
Experiment #4: Results
40% Relative Increase in Clickthrough
Adding "Symptoms" to BOTH headline and description produced a 40% increase
| Version | KPI | Relative Difference |
| C: Specialty Pain Resources | .28% | - |
| T1: Treatment Options | .26% | |
| T2: Causes and Solutions | .21% | |
| T3: Symptoms | .39% | 40. |
What You Need to Understand: By applying insight from the previous test and inserting "symptoms" into both the headline and description, it created more successful treatments across all ad groups.
Experiment #5: 31% increase in responses for insurance carrier by expressing a voicemail message that connected with the “right” specific prospect-level motivations
Experiment ID: N/A
Background: Large well-known insurance carrier
Goal: To increase the number of lead responses to a scripted voicemail
Research Question: Which voicemail script will generate the most lead responses?
Test Design: A/B single factor split test
Experiment #5: Control
Experiment #5: Treatment
Experiment #5: Side by Side
Experiment #5: Results
31% Relative Increase in Responses
The treatment increased broker handoffs by a relative difference of 30.80%
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 50.00% | - |
| Treatment | 65.40% | 30.80% |
What You Need to Understand: By expressing a message that connected with the “right” specific prospect-level motivations, the treatment outperformed the control by a 30.8% relative difference in conversions
Experiment #6: 17% increase in clickthrough for gas and oil technology company by focusing on overcoming challenges rather than focusing on results
Experiment ID: TP2067
Background: Company provides technology and product supply to the oil and gas industry. For this experiment, they were making a specific segment (drilling engineers) of their opt-in list aware of an upcoming conference.
Goal: To determine the most effective point of value
Primary Research Question: Which value category (overcoming challenges or generating results) will generate the most response?
Approach: A/B split test (variable cluster)
Experiment #6: Version A
 |
Key Elements
|
Experiment #6: Version B
 |
Key Elements
|
Experiment #6: Side by Side
Experiment #6: Results
17% Relative Increase in Clickthrough
Version A generated a 17.05% higher clickthrough rate than Version B
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Version A | 20.93% | 17.05% |
| Version B | 17.88% | - |
What You Need to Understand: The email message focused on overcoming challenges outperformed the email focused on results, leading us to conclude that for this segment, there is more value in obtaining the solution to problems.
Experiment #7: 201% increase in form submissions for market solutions provider by placing elements of the value proposition directly in the eye path of prospects
Experiment ID: TP1291
Background: A market solutions provider that offers end-to-end market solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses
Primary Research Question: Which page will obtain the most form submissions?
Goal: Increase the email capture rate of an online form
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #7: Control
Experiment #7: Treatment
Experiment #7: Side by Side
Experiment #7: Results
201% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased lead rate by 201.40%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 4.8% | - |
| Treatment | 14.65% | 201.40% |
What You Need to Understand: By placing elements of the value proposition directly in the eye path of prospects, the treatment increased form submissions by 201.40%
Experiment #8: Only 2% increase in leads for market solutions provider by incorporating a stylistic treatment design
Follow-up test for: Experiment #7 TP1291
Experiment ID: TP1323
Background: A market solutions provider that offers end-to-end market solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses
Primary Research Question: Which page will obtain the most form submissions (i.e., leads)?
Goal: Increase the amount of leads from an online form
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #8: Control
Experiment #8: Treatment
Experiment #8: Side by Side
Experiment #8: Results
2% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased total leads by 2%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 12.24% | - |
| Treatment | 12.58% | 2% |
What You Need to Understand: The stylistic treatment design did not impact conversion positively or negatively with any statistical significance, indicating that the learning from the previous test (TP1291) can be transferred across the company’s site-wide templates.
Experiment #9: 220% more captures online for addiction and mental health rehabilitation facility by utilizing a single-column, long-copy approach
Experiment ID: TP1662
Background: An addiction and mental health rehabilitation facility
Primary Research Question: Which page will obtain the most form submissions (i.e., leads)?
Goal: Increase the total number of leads captured.
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #9: Control
Experiment #9: Treatment
Experiment #9: Side by Side
Experiment #9: Results
220% Relative Increase in Email Capture
The optimized version increased lead rate by 220.00%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 0.78% | - |
| Treatment | 2.48% | 220.00% |
What You Need to Understand: By utilizing a single-column, long-copy approach, the treatment better guided the prospect’s thought process and generated 220% more captures online.
Experiment #10: 197% increase in email capture for a global social network for physicians by adding value copy and reducing anxiety
Experiment ID: TP1483
Background: A physician-only social network that allows medical product companies to conduct firsthand research on potential purchasers
Primary Research Question: Which barrier page will result in a higher lead rate for returning visitors?
Goal: To increase the number of leads from a rented trade publication list
Approach: A/B variable cluster split test
Experiment #10: Control
Experiment #10: Treatment
Experiment #10: Side by Side
Experiment #10: Results
197% Relative Increase in Email Capture
The optimized version increased lead rate by 197.30%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 18.18% | - |
| Treatment | 54.05% | 197.30% |
What You Need to Understand: By giving the rented list more content options, the treatment increased second-visit email captures by 197%.
Experiment #11: 326% increase in email capture for a national land and home sales organization by discovering and using the right incentive
Experiment ID: TP1432
Background: A national land and home sales organization testing the use of incentive on community microsites to help capture more emails of potential prospects
Primary Research Question: Which specific section of content will result in the largest lead rate?
Goal: To increase the number of leads for each community microsite
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #11: Control
Experiment #11: Treatment
Experiment #11: Side by Side
Experiment #11: Results
326% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased lead rate by 326.00%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 4.32% | - |
| Treatment | 18.40% | 326.00% |
What You Need to Understand: A simple change of substance in a single, important section of content results in a 326% increase in leads.
Experiment #12: 29% increase in lead generation rate for end-to-end mailing list solutions provider by reducing page length and adding incentives and testimonials
(Follow-up test for: Experiment #8 TP1662)
Experiment ID: TP1330
Background: Provides end-to-end mailing list solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses
Primary Research Question: Which page will obtain the most form submissions (i.e., leads)?
Goal: Increase number of leads from an online form.
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #12: Control
Experiment #12: Treatment 1
Experiment #12: Treatment 2
Experiment #12: Treatment 3
Experiment #12: Treatment 4
Experiment #12: Results
29% Relative Increase in Conversions
Treatments 2 and 3 each increased visit-to-lead conversion by 29%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 10.17% | - |
| T1: Research Focused | 12.04% | 19% |
| T2: Shortened w/ Testimonials | 13.00% | 29% |
| T3: Shortened w/ Incentive | 13.02% | 29% |
| T4: Shortened w/ Tour | 12.53% | 24% |
What You Need to Understand: By testing to determine which messaging focus produces the best performance, we learned that the incentive-focused approach produces 29% more leads than the control.
Experiment #13: 104% lift in clickthrough rate for physician-only social network by changing the email messaging to guide and engage the reader through a logical series of micro-conversions
Experiment ID: TP2081
Background: A physician-only social network that allows medical product companies to conduct first-hand research on potential purchasers
Primary Research Question: Which email design will generate the most opens, clicks?
Goal: To increase the number of leads from a rented trade publication list
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #13: Control
Experiment #13: Treatment
Experiment #13: Side by Side
Experiment #13: Results
104% Relative Increase in Email Capture
The optimized version increased lead rate by 104.00%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 1.55% | - |
| Treatment | 3.16% | 104.00% |
What You Need to Understand: By changing the email messaging to guide and engage the reader through a logical series of micro-conversions, the treatment generated a 104% lift in clickthrough rate.
Experiment #14: 275% increase conversion for a large luxury home builder by simply making one of the form fields optional
Experiment ID: TP1416
Background: A large luxury home builder seeking to attract high-end home buyers
Primary Research Question: Which form page will generate the most leads?
Goal: To increase the number of leads
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #14: Control
Experiment #14: Treatment
Experiment #14: Side by Side
Experiment #14: Results
275% Relative Increase in Email Capture
The optimized version increased lead rate by 275.00%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 1.96% | - |
| Treatment | 7.35% | 275.00% |
What You Need to Understand: By simply making one of the form fields optional, the treatment was able to increase conversion by 275.00%.
Experiment #15: 155% increase in conversion for physician-only social network by changing the amount and sequence of microsite content
Experiment ID: TP1483
Background: A physician-only social network that allows medical product companies to conduct first-hand research on potential purchasers
Primary Research Question: Which microsite content approach will result in the largest lead rate?
Goal: To increase the number of product company leads from the microsite
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #15: Version A
Experiment #15: Version A
Experiment #15: Version B
Experiment #15: Side by Side
Experiment #15: Results
155% Relative Increase in Conversions
Version A generated a 154.70% higher conversion rate than Version B
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Version A | 27.40% | 154.70% |
| Version B | 8.97% | - |
What You Need to Understand: By changing the amount and sequence of microsite content, the treatment generated an increase in leads without negatively affecting SEO.
Experiment #16: 96% increase in leads for a B2B company selling thermal image cameras by reducing the form fields
Experiment ID: TP1877
Background: A B2B company selling thermal image cameras
Primary Research Question: Which landing page will generate the most leads?
Goal: To generate more leads
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #16: Control
Experiment #16: Treatment
Experiment #16: Side by Side
Experiment #16: Results
96% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased lead rate by 95.80%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 2.70% | - |
| Treatment | 6.00% | 95.80% |
What You Need to Understand: By clearly communicating the value of the guide and reducing friction and anxiety within the form, the treatment increased the lead rate by 95.80%.
Experiment #17: 331% Relative increase in capture rate for medical treatment organization by applying a radical redesign
Experiment ID: TP1560
Background: An organization that offers a minimally invasive medical treatment for people suffering from chronic pain
Primary Research Question: Which site will generate the highest lead conversion rate?
Goal: To increase leads from the website
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #17: Control
Experiment #17: Treatment
Experiment #17: Side by Side
Experiment #17: Results
331% Relative Increase in Email Capture
The optimized version increased lead rate by 331.00%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 1.06% | - |
| Treatment | 7.00% | 331.00% |
What You Need to Understand: By providing visitors with multiple CTAs to accommodate for various motivation levels and improving the page design to reduce process-based friction, the treatment generated a 331% increase in email capture
Experiment #18: 135% increase in leads for industrial equipment seller by optimizing the form
Experiment ID: TP1135
Background: A small B2B company that offers industrial equipment
Primary Research Question: Which page and quote process will generate the most leads?
Goal: To increase the amount of crane quote requests
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #18: Control
Experiment #18: Control
Experiment #18: Control
Experiment #18: Treatment
Experiment #18: Treatment
Experiment #18: Treatment
Experiment #18: Treatment
Experiment #18: Side by Side
Experiment #18: Results
135% Relative Increase in Conversions
The treatment outperformed the control by 134.73%
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 4.15% | - |
| Treatment | 8.71% | 134.73% |
What You Need to Understand: By reducing friction within the form process and clarifying the page objective, the treatment increased the number of leads (those who started the quote process but didn’t finish) by 135%.
Experiment #19: 166% relative increase in leads for a luxury home builder by minimizing friction through reducing the number of steps and fields in form
Experiment ID: TP1546
Background: A luxury home builder seeking to sell homes to families with a higher-than-average income level
Primary Research Question: Which treatment will generate the highest lead rate?
Goal: To increase the number of leads
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #19: Control
Experiment #19: Control
Experiment #19: Treatment
Experiment #19: Side by Side
Experiment #19: Results
166% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased lead rate by 166.5%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 0.09% | - |
| Treatment | 2.03% | 166.5% |
What You Need to Understand: By minimizing friction through reducing the number of steps and fields, the treatment outperformed the control by 166%.
Experiment #20: 246% increase in conversion for large energy company by reducing the amount of friction in the CTA process and adding a simple radio button CTA to the first step
Experiment ID: TP1576
Background: A large energy company seeking to increase whitepaper download leads
Primary Research Question: Which treatment will generate the most whitepaper downloads?
Goal: To increase the number of leads
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #20: Control
Experiment #20: Control
Experiment #20: Treatment
Experiment #20: Side by Side
Experiment #20: Results
246% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased lead rate by 166.5%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | 1.03% | - |
| Treatment | 4.06% | 245.06% |
What You Need to Understand: By reducing the amount of friction in the CTA process and adding a simple radio button CTA to the first step, the treatment increased lead rate by 246%.
Experiment #21: 638% increase in call center leads for a healthcare company by Increasing the perceived value on a long-form landing page.
Experiment ID: TP1560
Background: HealthSpire, an Aetna company, serving Americans 65+ with Medicare, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplement insurance plans
Primary Research Question: Will the addition of primary and product-level value coupled with the emphasis of value on a “Trusted Advisor,” drive additional calls?
Goal: To increase leads from the landing page to the call center
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #21: Control
Experiment #21: Treatment 1
Experiment #21: Treatment 2
Experiment #21: Side by Side
Experiment #21: Results
638% Relative Increase in Leads
The optimized version increased lead rate by 104.00%.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control | - | - |
| Treatment 1 | - | 638.6% |
| Treatment 2 | - | - |
What You Need to Understand: By providing emphasis on the trusted advisor value rather than overwhelming prospects with the various Medicare products and plans options, Treatment 2 generated 638% more leads and requests for calls than the control.
Experiment #22: 33% increase in sales per hour for Canada’s national newspaper, by optimizing call guide and new product training tactics
Experiment ID: (Protected)
Background: The Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, seeking to identify the best times to call and optimize messaging for those calls
Primary Research Question: Which call script and process approach will convert more leads?
Goal: To investigate the current telemarketing performance, identify opportunities for improvements with each vendor and ultimately, help to increase the channel’s profitability.
Approach: A/B multifactor split test
Experiment #22: Research Approach
Experiment #22: Data Analysis
Experiment #22: Qualitative Analysis
Experiment #22: Testing
Experiment #22: Results
33% Increase in Sales Per Hour
Vendor A — the vendor with high quantity but low quality of calls — increased SPH by 33% over a four-month period.
| Design | KPI | % Rel. Change |
| Control Script | 0.09% | - |
| Treatment Script | 0.12% | 33.0% |
What You Need to Understand: Even though The Globe cut its calling in half, the focus on the use of a newly-optimized call guide and new product training tactics have had an effect on sales per hour.
Download a 158-page PDF with these 22 experiments
plus, you’ll receive regular emails from MECLABS Institute.
Related Resources
Drive conversion increases with a Research Partnership
Work with MECLABS Institute scientists to make new discoveries and drive significant increases across your funnel.
Learn More
Research-based Ecommerce Swipe File
25 valid marketing experiments to give you ideas for your next A/B test
Learn More
