Which Webinar Page Is Winning this Split Test?

By Kat Von Rohr, Writer for LeadPages

I have a prediction for you.

By the time you’re done reading this post, you will want to try this same A/B split test for your business. I’ll tell you why in just a moment.

First, I need to give credit to LeadPages customer — Leah Fisch from Leah4Sci.com — for running the split test you see below.

Actually, Leah has ran a series of split tests like this one, to see which webinar page attracts more organic chemistry students to her webinars.

As you can see, Leah is testing two dramatically different pages against each other. So far, one webinar page has dominated (with an over 100% boost in response).

But which webinar page do you think is winning here?

Check out the two pages below and then scroll down for the winner…

Choice A: This variation features the Web 2.0 registration template from inside of LeadPages.
Choice A: This variation features the Web 2.0 registration template from inside of LeadPages.
Choice B: Similar copy and photo, but this variation features the James Schramko Webinar template from inside of LeadPages.
Choice B: Similar copy and photo, but this variation features the James Schramko Webinar template from inside of LeadPages.

And the Winner Is…

Choice A. The cleaner, bluer “Webinar 2.0 page” boosted response by 102% in this split test.

According to the data inside LeadPages, choice A won with a 95.28% probability. That means there’s a 95.28% probability that this mathematical result is not due to chance.

(As I mentioned last week, you should always check to make sure that your own split tests have at least a 95% probability rate or higher before you declare a winner.)

According to our customer, Leah, she ran this design split test because she heard our CEO, Clay Collins mention on several webinars how well the James Schramko Webinar page (choice B) has been performing.

While it’s true that the James Schramko webinar template has been winning for us, that was NOT the case in this particular split test for Leah’s audience.

This is a classic example of why it’s always critical to run split tests to your own audience. Because until you test, you never know what’s going to resonate with your crowd of fans.

Interestingly, Leah felt the same way. Before the results were in, she hypothesized that the Webinar 2.0 page would perform better for her audience. In the end, her gut instincts won out.

Going forward, Leah is continuing to test to ensure that this page continues to win.

A big thanks to Leah for giving us permission to share her results. For more on what Leah is doing to help frustrated students ace organic chemistry, check out Leah4Sci.com.

The Kind of Test That’s ONLY Easy Inside LeadPages

I mentioned at the beginning of this post that you will want to try this A/B split test for your own business. Here’s why I say that…

Both of the pages that you see if this A/B split test are ready-made templates inside LeadPages.

These two pages both feature the same colors, fonts and exact layouts that come prepackaged with both proven templates. (I say “proven” because a template doesn’t make it inside the LeadPages gallery until it’s been thoroughly tested.)

Since both of these pages are proven, it’s a lot like pitting two all-stars against each other to see which one wins for your business. (Always a good idea.)

Also, this is the kind of test you could only do easily inside LeadPages. If you tried to do a similar test on your own, you would have to design, develop and test two very unique pages to ensure they were both proven all-stars — before you started testing them against each other.

As it is, if you’re a LeadPages customer, you can easily pull up any of the over 60 templates inside LeadPages and start running A/B split tests like this one. Simply pull up two different templates inside the members area. Drop in your copy and graphics, and you can create two pages to start testing in less than 20 minutes.

If you’re a pro customer, it gets even easier, because you can use our split testing tool inside LeadPages to run the data for you.

So my question for you: Will you try a similar test like this in your own business? (Or have you already?) Why or why not? Let me know if you have in the comments below.

  • Elena Dobre

    I’m using Marketizator, a conversion optimization software, for split tests. Why do I use A/B testing? Because it works. It always gives you an answer about what to do next. It doesn’t matter if the variation affects the conversion rate negatively; it is a test and this is its role-to show you the winner version in order to implement it and get the most out of it. 🙂

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Nice! Thanks for the insight Elena! 🙂

  • There are many factors changed between the two tests. It would be interesting to re-test to see how they’d compare with closer duplication of headline, text, and webinar time slot options.

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Agreed – it would make an interesting follow-up test. 🙂 Thanks Joe!

    • See my comment to Brecht. This was an initial ‘which idea should I start with?’
      Once done I started traditional split-testing on the clean-blue version

  • So… this isn’t a test of templates. You have 2 different headlines and messages. One is “proven strategies in an hour” the other is fear of loss “don’t let this keep you from your dreams”. You can’t have completely different messages in the headline and call it a test of the template, it just aint so.

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Fair enough. Thanks for the comment Brecht.

    • martin

      I totally agree with you Brech. If your going to test template text needs to be the same and if your going to test different text the template needs to stay the same otherwise you get conflicting results as in this case. Question was it really the template that made the difference or the text? hhhmmm may want to do this test again…

    • You’re right of course. My logic was as follows:
      Test 2 VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS, get a baseline for which to start with, then take the winner and split test individual elements on that page for better and better results. I’ve been doing just that with the winner of this test for the past few months.

      • There’s nothing wrong with your test and the results speak for themselves but I think it’s important when you’re learning from a success to look at the factors involved. So if it’s the copywriting lets give that credit and if its the template then let’s put it there. Thats all I’m saying. Maybe split test the winning copy across those 2 templates. I’d wager it’s a dead heat but I’m ready to be wrong.

        • Kat Von Rohr

          Love the debate happening here! 🙂 I hear what you’re saying Brecht. But in this case, I chose to showcase this split test specifically because it did test multiple variants. Like Leah, I also like testing two very different pages (different headlines, designs, graphics etc) and then doing follow-up testing on more specific elements to see what works.

          I only chose to highlight the fact that they were two templates inside LeadPages to show how simple it would be to run a similar test. But if you were going to run a similar test — you could always use the same headlines and simply test the designs themselves if you wished. It’s entirely up to you. 🙂

      • Pekka Mattila

        Yeah. I’d use the same copy with different templates OR the different copy with different templates. Then you know what really works. After this test you don’t know what was the reason exactly.

    • Steven Mathis

      Any test that bumps results is great…so good job Leah 🙂 BUT – I agree regarding the copy and I would absolutely test the winning copy from the web 2.0 page in other templates (Schramko or others) now that it’s the winner so far. To me, the copy (headline/subhead) is *much* better on the web 2.0 page and that could easily be why it won.

  • Matt

    Test, test, test… that’s what the coach says, that what the coach gets….

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Absolutely! Thanks Matt. 🙂

  • Vincent Vega

    How do you determine the 95.28% probability? What do you use to come up with this number?

    • Vincent – the software works it out (in this case inside lead pages, but it could be google content experiments, optimizely, visual website optimizer). What you’re essentially doing is using the observed optin rate for each template as an estimate for the “true” optin rate for that template based on the sample of people who happened to have come to that page during the test. The statistics then compare the two rates to see if there really is any difference between the optin rates or if it could just be random variation. The 95.2% probability means there’s just a 4.72% chance that the difference in rates is due to random factors and a 95.28% chance that one page is better than the other.

      • Kat Von Rohr

        Thanks for the awesome insight Ian! 🙂

        Vincent, Ian is correct. Any split-testing tool will calculate the confidence rate or probability rate for you. That includes the split testing tool inside LeadPages.

  • Jason Marshall

    I love seeing people in niches like this. Keep up the great work Leah! Checked out her site and she’ll now need to update it with a leadbox above the fold 😉

    • Thanks @disqus_ZGD6eG4PEK:disqus. You’re right of course, I plan to implement leadboxes next month (my students are prepping for finals = hectic time for me)

      • Kat Von Rohr

        I second that Jason! Great work Leah! 🙂

  • lisabowen

    How can I do a test inside lead pages without the pro package. I’m a new customer, only had the program a week or so!

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Great question! In addition to LeadPages split testing tool, you can also use any other split testing tool with LeadPages like Visual Web Optimizer, Google Content Experiments, Optimizely etc. Hope that helps! 🙂

  • ryaneven

    I’m not your target market, but to me the headline:

    “In 1 Hour Discover My PROVEN Strategy That Has Helped 100’S of Struggling Students Ace Organic Chemistry”

    …is much more compelling than just “Ace Organic Chemistry”.

    I bet a pre-head before the headline calling out organic chemistry students might give another little bump. Something like this:


    “In 1 Hour Discover My PROVEN Strategy That Has Helped 100’S of Struggling Students Ace Organic Chemistry”

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Very cool! Thanks for the feedback Ryan! 🙂

  • Josh

    I think its great that real tests that have been run to statistical significance are being shared on the blog here, but I would love to see the data behind them. What I mean is how many conversions were generated by the pages, what the conversion rates were, how long the split test ran for, and so on. i think these split test examples would be even more useful if these kind of metrics were included in the article.

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Thanks Josh! Really appreciate the feedback. 🙂

  • Karl Eberhardt

    I picked A

    however i would strongly argue its less to do with the “design”
    *the copy is superior on variant A . The benefit is clearly stated – the reason they are there is to ace organic chem. Saying “in this webinar you will learn…”

    classic copy writing … the *whats in it for me*

    Variant B copy is simply not as compelling and the headline making assumptions that poor grades are keeping them from dreams…not talking directly to the reason they came there …. to pass organic chem

    • Kat Von Rohr

      Thanks for the insight Karl — we appreciate it. 🙂