A/B Test: Which LeadBox™ Copy Increased Opt-Ins by 316.61%?

Any high-converting landing page or LeadBox™ needs to have a sense of forward motion. But as it moves along, should your copy take the direct route or the scenic route?

If you take the direct route in a LeadBox™, you might decide to quickly recap your offer, highlight a couple of exciting words like “FREE” and “NOW,” and go on your way. That could be an excellent way to build momentum and get people to complete the opt-in faster.

But maybe that approach makes visitors feel rushed. Maybe you should take the scenic route, taking the time to restate your offer in a different way and break down what you’re offering with more detail so visitors better understand its value.

Which route will produce more conversions? Consider running a A/B test like today’s featured test. Version A describes the lead magnet as a training packet about “6 Things Successful People Never Do”—just like it says on the lead-magnet illustration—and keeps the copy short (though it does add “Now” to the button to gin up more momentum).

Version B takes its time to expand on the lead-magnet illustration. It explains that the training packet includes a “worksheet and training,” and describes the content more specifically as “6 Things That Are Stoping [sic] You on Your Way to Success.”

Which version do you think increased opt-ins for this LeadBox™ by 316.61%?

Go down to the comments and tell us which one you’d choose and why—then vote below to see if you were right!

Vote to reveal the winning A/B-tested LeadBox™ and our analysis.

Vote: Which Page Won This Split Test?
1 What's Your Vote?
2 And the Winner Is...
Direct, Action-Oriented Copy
Longer, More Detailed Copy
1 What's Your Vote?
2 And the Winner Is...
3 Free Guide
Free Download: See Results from 20 of the Best Split Tests We've Featured on Our Podcast, ConversionCast (Called "The Split Testing Encyclopedia of Results").
It Contains Dozens of More Split Test Ideas, Results, and Insights.)
Click Here to Download my Free Guide

PRIVACY POLICY: We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe.

YES! Nice call!
Nope! Try Again Next Time!
Winner: Version A created an overall increase of 316.61%
50% 50%

How People Voted

Click here to see our take on these results

If you chose Version A you are correct!

Version A, with a 100% probability of outperforming Version B, increased opt-ins by 316.61%.

Although we can’t say with total certainty why this change caused the increase, here are some of my speculations:

1. The copy in Version A is shorter, reducing clutter within the LeadBox.

2. Including “Now” in Version A’s button copy created more of a sense of urgency.

3. Version B misspells one of its key words (“Stoping”), which may have lowered the perceived quality of the lead magnet.

4. Version B assumes that visitors think of themselves as unsuccessful. That may not have resonated as well as Version A, which simply encourages visitors to find out whether they have the habits of successful people.

5. The title of the lead magnet matches the copy in Version A, providing continuity between the image and the copy.

Why do you think Version A outperformed Version B? Let us know in the comments!

Not all visitors are the same, but A/B testing your copy may be something to consider for your own LeadBoxes®.


What Do You Think?

Did this test’s results surprise you? Why do you think Version A increased conversions so dramatically? Leave a comment below and let us know your thoughts.

If you’re new to LeadPages, you should know that all Pro and Advanced users can run any A/B test inside LeadPages in just five clicks.

Do you have a LeadBox™ like this one that you would like to test? If so, you can set up the exact same type of test in under a minute. You can also A/B test your form fields, calls-to-action, images, and just about any other change you can think of.

Watch the quick video below for an introduction to enabling split testing on your LeadPages account.


More About A/B Testing LeadBoxes®

A/B Test: Which Copy Strategy Increased This Real Estate Agent’s Opt-Ins by 152%? For another example of the power of A/B testing LeadBoxes®, check out this copy test.

4 Ways to Optimize Your Split Testing Strategy for Better Results and Crystal Clear Insights A/B testing has become one of the easiest ways to increase conversions. Learn how to optimize your A/B testing strategy for better results and insights with these 4 simple tips.

  • This is tricky because there are a number of subtle variables in the two versions that I’m afraid leaves us with more questions.

    Version A has a very specific offer (the training packet) with a title. It doesn’t mention the Worksheet except in the CTA button.

    Version B offers the FREE Worksheet but the training is somewhat ambiguous. It doesn’t mention a
    “training packet” just the less specific “training” with a different and longer title. The title also doesn’t match the graphic which shows the title from Version A.

    So what’s being tested here?

    If it’s the shorter title vs. the longer title, the rest of the text should be identical.

    If it’s the actual offer – the training packet vs. training packet and worksheet – the rest of the text should be identical.

    I think it’s always best to have a very clear, specific and (if possible) a tangible offer.

    The real wild card here is the title. Continued testing of different titles could continue to produce higher (and lower) conversion rates.

    • John Nye

      Excellent points, Bob! I’m glad this subject was raised as it calls out the benefits of single variable testing. Although it may take longer to validate a change in opt-ins, single variable testing makes it easier for marketers to understand why customers react differently to simple page elements, such as:
      – Copy
      – Images
      – Color

      On the other side of the fence, testing multiple variables at once has its benefits, as well. This strategy can be very useful when you’ve conducted multiple single variable tests and have been unable to outperform the original (control) page. This approach can also inspire future single variable test ideas that you can utilize further down the road.

      • Thanks John

        We have seen this for years in direct mail as creative teams are asked to develop an entirely new package (with some offer/budget parameters) in the hopes of beating the control with a homerun.

        When you find a winning package that beats your control, you’re not always sure why. Was it the teaser copy,the letter copy, the design, the new insert, the revamped reply form, the added

        For those answers, you need to isolate components and test them individually. Not too many homeruns with these tests, as you indicated, but useful information nevertheless.