[Split Test Challenge] Which Fine Print Copy Boosted Conversions 22.99%?

540x304-split-test-thumbnail

Sometimes even the hardest things to read can have a dramatic influence on your landing page.

The split test below, run by LeadPages customer Alex Teo, pits two variations of privacy policy text against one another. Other than the update to this tiny text, the rest of the Basic Squeeze Page landing page remains the same.

The base version of fine print Alex tested — “Your Information is 100% Secure And Will Never Be Shared.” — was cut down — to simply “Your Information is 100% Secure.” — in the alternative variation.

Both share valuable information in the same spot on the page, but only one proved to be the better page. Was it the copy that made the additional promise not to share information, or did the shorter and sweeter version win out?

Vote below to reveal the winning split test variation!

Vote: Which Page Won This Split Test?
1 What's Your Vote?
2 And the Winner Is...
50%
Base/Original: “Your Information is 100% Secure and Will Never Be Shared.” Alex uses the Basic Squeeze Page to draw attention to his free report.
Variation: “Your Information is 100% Secure.” With the same Basic Squeeze Page template, Alex cuts down the fine print at the bottom of his landing page.
1 What's Your Vote?
2 And the Winner Is...
3 Free Guide
66%
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 B created an overall increase of 22.99%
30% 70%

How People Voted

Click here to see our take on these results

As it turns out, the Variation without the “Never Be Shared” copy won.

Over the course of the test, Alex’s shortened copy showed a 22.99% improvement over the base. After crunching the statistics, the probability that the shorter copy significantly outperforms the longer copy is 99.41%.

Because only one aspect of the landing page was tested here, it’s easier to say with certainty what caused the change. Here, the results can obviously be attributed to the copy change.

Despite the small nature of the call-out change, it took up only a few rows of pixels at the bottom of the screen, the effect means that Alex can now expect an approximate 13 more conversions per 100 visitors to his page — just by making that change.

Take a look at the full statistics below.

The variation with the shorter privacy policy boosted conversions 22.99%.

Sometimes Small = Big

We’ve seen results like this in a few different places on this blog. Even changing one word of copy or updating a photo can increase results significantly.

Split testing is a way to reveal hidden factors that may otherwise slip your view. These factors, once identified, can be used to increase the performance of a page manyfold in some cases.

Knowing what you know about this test, what other aspects of this page would you like to see rigorously split tested? Let me know in the comments below.

Next Steps

Thanks again to Alex Teo for sharing the results of this test with us today.

If you’re new to LeadPages, know that we make getting setup to run split testing as easy as possible. LeadPages makes it easy to test for an almost unlimited number of factors. Browse through dozens of templates, make a selection and get to customizing.

In this test Alex tested copy, but you can also split test images, colors, and just about any design change you can think of using the intuitive LeadPages builder.

Watch the one-and-a-half minute video below for an introduction into enabling split testing on your LeadPages account.

Why do you think Alex’s test generated such a large return? Have you had experience with something similar? Let me know in the comments below.

  • Mike Power

    I can only speculate about this but it may well be that by promising NOT to share information you actually introduce the idea that the information COULD be shared when that concern may not have been uppermost in the respondent’s mind to start with. Just a guess.

    • Completely agree, Mike. That was my first thought as well.

      • Mike Power

        Thanks Will. Following you on Twitter and bookmarked your site. 🙂